U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | government |
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:8
Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world’s superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military industrial complex and world government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:10
A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States’ continued military presence in the Middle East.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:20
This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the pipelines would be cheaper but would not satisfy our international government planners.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:21
So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:25
Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:32
As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If the UN’s plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom, and lives.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:34
The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:40
It has been especially tempting for Members of Congress to accept the projection of higher revenues as a panacea to our budgetary problems. The prevailing attitude in Washington as 1997 came to a close was that the limited government forces had succeeded. The conservative revolution has won, and now it is time to move on and make government work more efficiently.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:43
While complacency regarding foreign policy sets the stage for danger overseas, this naive attitude regarding the budget and the deficit is permitting the welfare state to be reenergized and cancel entirely any efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:44
Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:46
The end is closer than most realize, considering the optimistic rhetoric coming from Washington, plus the fact the majority of citizens are beneficiaries of the system, and even the producers have grown dependent on government protection, grants, contracts and special subsidies.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:47
Although the session ended on a modestly happy bipartisan note, I suspect in time 1997 will be looked upon as a sad year, in that the limited government revolution of 1994 was declared lost by adjournment time in November.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:54
Congress continues to obfuscate by calling token cuts in previously proposed increases as budget cuts. The media and the proponents of big government and welfare obediently demagogue this issue by decrying why the slashes in the budget are inhumane and uncaring.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:55
Without honesty in language and budgeting, true reforms are impossible. In spite of the rhetoric, bold new educational and medical programs were started, setting the stage for massive new spending in the future. New programs always cost more than originally projected. The block grant approach to reform did not prompt a decrease in spending, and frequently added to it. The principle of whether or not the Federal Government should even be involved in education, medicine, welfare, farming, et cetera, was not seriously considered.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:56
The 1998 budget is the largest ever and represents the biggest increase in the domestic budget in eight years. Those in charge threw in the towel and surrendered all efforts this past year to cut back the size of government. In this fiscal year, many concede the deficit will actually go up, even without a slowing in the economy.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:77
Two special areas. Congress in the past year capitulated in two significant areas by not only failing to cut spending, but massively increasing government’s role in medicine and in education. House Republicans bragged that 7 out of 8 educational initiatives passed the House, many of them being quite expensive. Charter schools cost over $100 million, funding for vouchers was increased, $3 billion was appropriated to extend student loans, and a new $210 million reading in excellence program was initiated. A program for high-tech training and one designed to help children with disabilities was also started.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:79
The Federal Government has been involved in education and medicine more than in any other domestic area. This has caused a serious price inflection for these two services, while undermining the quality and results in both. The more we spend, the higher the cost, the worse the service, and the greater the regulations. So what did Congress do to solve the problems in the past year? Even in this so-called age of cutting back and a balanced budget, it expanded government precisely in the two areas that suffer the most from big government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:82
This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in Washington or in the State capitols, it will not change the dynamics of public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, cannot replace the benefits of private ownership. Besides, the block grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to the various State entities. Strings will always be attached no matter how many safeguards are written into the law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the Federal Government or even the State governments ought to be involved. The high hopes that this process will alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after many more years of failures and dollars spent.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:83
There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If the funding for the pornographic NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government should we expect to be? The devolution approach is not the proponents of big government’s first choice, but it is acceptable to them. Early adjournment meant the call for more spending was satisfied and the supporters of big government, in spite of the rhetoric, were content. Searching for a partisan issue, the minority was content with campaign reform and the questions surrounding illegal voting.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:85
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:89
The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:97
The most we can ever hope for is to demand full disclosure. Then, if influence is bought, at least it would be in the open. The other most difficult task, and the only thing that will ever dampen special interest control of government, would be to radically reduce the power of Congress over our lives and our economy. Taxpayer funding of campaigns would prove disastrous.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:101
Voluntary contracts. There is little understanding or desire in Congress to consistently protect voluntary contract. Many of our programs to improve race relations have come from government interference in the voluntary economic contract. Government’s role in a free society should be to enforce contracts, yet too often it does the opposite. All labor laws, affirmative action programs and consumer protection laws are based on the unconstitutional authority of government to regulate voluntary economic contracts. If the same process were applied to the press, it would be correctly condemned as prior restraint and ruled unconstitutional.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:102
Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold society and improve personal moral behavior.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:103
But these same champions of personal liberty do not hesitate at all to use the same government force they readily condemn in social matters to impose their vision of a fair and equitable economic system on all of us.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:107
A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist legislation.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:108
Once government loses sight of its true purpose of protecting liberty and embarks on a course where the generous use of force is used to interfere in the voluntary social and economic contracts, liberty will be diminished and the foundation of a true republic undermined.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:110
Too often both sides allow the principle of government force to be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at a great cost and risk to American taxpayers, while accomplishing little except to promote a firm hatred of America for the interference. This itself is a threat to our security. The resulting conditions of international conflict are used as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties of all Americans.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:118
Whatever happened to the child’s logic of “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me?” This basic philosophy offered a logical response to taunts by bullies. Today, the bully is the government which is determined to regulate, enforce, and imprison anyone who doesn’t tow the line of political correctness, multi-culturalism and follow government dictated social and economic rules.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:119
But why can’t we consider a solution that incorporates the healthy skepticism of those opposing government mandated V-chips and telephone monitoring devices with those who see the foolishness and danger of political correctness, especially seen when it comes to enforcing crimes against hate speech. Too often the same people who understand the hate crimes issue are the ones that believe government ought to be able to monitor our telephone and computer and censor television programming.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:122
By insisting that all government action be guided by tolerance and compromise in any effort to protect liberty, it is only natural that strict observance to standards in other areas would be abandoned. And it is true, we now live in an age where life has relative value, money has no definition, marriage is undefinable, moral values are taught as relative ethics in our classrooms, good grades in the classroom no longer reflect excellence, success in business is often subjected to doubts because of affirmative action, and corporate profits depend more on good lobbyists in Washington than creative effort.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:124
The usual result is the various groups receiving benefits become highly competitive and bitter toward each other. Eventually, it leads to a time when compromise and government planning no longer look practical nor fair. In the next few years, we can expect this to become more evident as Congress will be forced to acknowledge that the budget has more problems than was admitted to in the closing days of the first session of the 105th Congress.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:125
If we do not define the type of government we are striving for and reject interventionism as a doctrine, the endless debate will remain buried in details of form and degree of the current system with no discussion of substance. Merely deciding where to draw the line on government involvement in our lives will consume all the energy of the legislative process. Whether or not we should be involved at all will receive little attention.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:126
In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government’s responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with the President as saying, “I tell you, a decent society is not based on rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.”
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:131
The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone’s rights. The whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with the efforts ending in failure.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:132
National governments should exist to protect individual liberty at home by enforcing laws against violence and fraud and from outside threats. The bigger and more international government becomes, the more likely it is that the effort will fail.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:135
When government’s sole purpose is to protect the lowliest of the minority, the individual, there will be no market for influence buying. Regulating the peddlers of graft will only make things worse for the rules will further undermine the right of the individual to petition and seek his own redress of grievances.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:136
Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon which we have embarked.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:137
Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these were truly in the defense of liberty.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:138
The main motivation behind these mass murders was to maintain political power. Liberty in many ways has become the forgotten cause of the 20th century. Even the mildest mannered welfarist depends on government guns and threats of prison to forcefully extract wealth from producers to transfer it to the politically well-connected. The same government force is used by the powerful rich to promote from the programs designed to benefit them.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:141
“Democracy” is now the goal of all those who profess progress and peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:142
The question is, where will our alternative come from? Which group or individual truly speaks for liberty and limited government? The speeches, the rhetoric, the campaigns rarely reveal the underlying support most politicians have for expanding the State, especially when coming from those who are thought to be promoting limited government.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:143
Those who believe in welfare and socialism are frequently more straightforward. But we are now hearing from some traditional “opponents” of big government, admonishing us to stop “trashing” government. Instead, we should be busy “fixing it.” They do it without once challenging the moral principle that justifies all government intervention in our personal lives and economic transactions.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:144
William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government saying, “. . . some of today’s antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you come away with the impression that government has never done anything well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air and water remains clean.”
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:145
Bennett’s great concern is this. “Disdain of representative government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to instill in citizens a noble love of country” (the State rather than liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country because of their “utter contempt some have directed against government itself.” In other words, we must love our government ruled by the tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom and America.
government
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:146
Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while blindly defending majoritarian rule for making government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.
government
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 5:4
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.
government
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 5:5
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.
government
National Education Test
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 6:2
However, support for this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the limitations on its power imposed by the United States Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate authority of the United States Government.
government
National Education Test
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 6:3
The United States Constitution prohibits the executive branch from developing and implementing a national test, or any program dealing with education. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children — individual states, local communities, and, primarily, parents.
government
National Education Test
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 6:5
Educators will react to this pressure to ensure students scored highly on the national test by “teaching to the test” — that is, structuring the curriculum so students learn those subjects, and only those subjects covered by the national tests. As University of Kansas Professor John Poggio remarked in February of last year, “What gets tested is what will be taught.” Government bureaucrats would then control the curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national test!
government
National Education Test
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 6:7
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal government can control the curriculum of every school in the nation. Implementation of national testing would be a fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of education.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:2
Overall, I believe this country faces a serious problem in that our government is too big. When government is big, it means that liberty is threatened. Today, our governments throughout the land consume more than half of what the American people produce. In order to do that, there has to be curtailment on individual liberty.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:18
There was a Kuwaiti professor who was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, the U.S. frightens us with ads to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies, thus, ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States continued military presence in the Middle East. That is not my opinion; that is a Kuwaiti professor writing in a government newspaper in Kuwait.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:28
The people in the Middle East see a double standard because the Israeli Government does not comply with U.N. Resolution 242, but we see no action. The U.S. is too strong on one and too soft on the other. The peace process is falling apart. We do know that the peace process with Israel and the Palestinians is not going smoothly, yet this is behind some of what is happening because they do not understand our policy.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:43
Syria is another close neighbor of Iraq. Syria was an ally in the Persian Gulf War. Syria would like us not to do anything. Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf went to Damascus to see Syrian President Hafez Assad, marking the first time in 18 years that the Syrian leader met with an Iraqi official. This is one of the consequences, this is one of the things that is happening. The further we push the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government, the further we push them into close alliances with the more radical elements in that region.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:54
We have heard of that before. “That, in turn,” he goes on to say, “will provoke protests in parts of the Arab world, Jordan probably and Egypt as well. In both countries the United States is already considered the protector of a recalcitrant Israeli Government. As for Israel itself, it can expect that Iraq will send missiles its way armed with chemical or biological weapons.”
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:112
But none of this could happen. We could never move in this direction unless we asked a simple question: What really is the role of our government? Is the role of our government to perpetuate a welfare-warfare state to take care of the large special interests who benefit from this by building weapons and buying and selling oil? No, the purpose cannot be that.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:116
Now, this point will not be proven until the welfare state crumbles, and it may well crumble in the next decade. The Soviet system crumbled rather suddenly. We cannot afford to continue to do this, but we must be cautious not to allow the corporate state and the militant attitude that we have with our policy to rule. We have to decide here in this country, as well as in this body, what we want from our government and what kind of a government we want.
government
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:117
We got off from the right track with the founders of this country. They wrote a good document and that document was designed for this purpose, for the protection of liberty. We have gone a long way from that, until now we have the nanny state that we cannot even plow our gardens without umpteen number of permits from the Federal Government. So our government is too big, it is too massive, and we have undermined the very concept of liberty.
government
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national identification number by which the federal government can more easily monitor private information regarding American citizens.
government
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 10:2
The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official.
government
Voter Eligibility Verification Act
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 10:5
National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I’m sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen’s papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their “papers” containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting.
government
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 11:6
Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable under our system of law, and I call my colleagues’ attention to this because this is very serious.
government
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 11:10
Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. Government and the British Government participated and they have the documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what we do.
government
Millennium Bug
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this Legislation, H.R. 3116, will not solve the Year 2000 problem. Giving some financial regulators “statutory parity” with other regulators will not solve the problem. Everyone will have to take responsibility to secure that their own systems will be Year 2000-compliant. We must hope that the government will be as diligent in its compliance with the so-called Millennium Bug problem as it want the private sector to be.
government
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.
government
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states.
government
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 14:2
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.
government
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 14:3
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Opposing Federal Gun Control
24 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 14:4
For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government’s attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.
government
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 15:2
We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq.
government
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 1
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 15:12
But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy.
government
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us.
government
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.
government
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 20:2
Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only consult 1996’s welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national data base.
government
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 20:4
There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver’s license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress’ responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America’s citizens.
government
Introducing The Privacy Protection Act
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 20:6
Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America’s freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
government
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 21:2
Our founding fathers formed our government to ensure that no single person could have complete power or authority over any aspect of government; to give anyone that kind of power is to invite tyranny.
government
Recommending An Article By R.C. Sproul, Jr.
25 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 21:10
The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I’m not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can’t read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
government
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
26 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2460, The Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Setting aside the vital and relevant question of whether the enumerated powers and tenth amendment allow the federal government to make possession of electronic scanning devices criminal, another aspect of this bill should have met with harsh criticism from those who hold individual liberties in even some regard.
government
Wireless Telephone Protection Act
26 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 22:3
The United States Constitution prohibits this federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the persecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to ten years).
government
Introduction Of The Rice Farmer Fairness Act
5 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 23:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
government
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers.
government
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?
government
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.
government
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:8
Cleary, while engaging in such congressional activism makes “clean work,” it also makes for an oppressive national government involved in every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Remember that in engaging in such activism, the next liberty upon which the Congress infringes, may be your own.
government
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:9
I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this “road to serfdom” albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, “preventing birth defects”. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer’s notion of a national government of limited powers.
government
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 25:3
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova “without question a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?
government
U.S. Obsession With Worldwide Military Occupation Policy
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 25:8
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
government
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:12
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
government
On Regulating Credit Unions
1 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 32:3
For instance, it was bragged upon, the bill was bragged upon because the regulations of safety and soundness was good. We have had a lot of regulation, for safety and soundness for banks and savings and loan, and yet the FDIC and FSLIC had to be bailed out. The insurance deposit for credit unions was started by private money, no government subsidies, and has never been bailed out. So now we are going to overlook the credit unions and make sure they are safer and sound.
government
Credit Union Membership Access Act
1 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 33:8
In addition to all of the problems associated with the obligations and requirements that the government regulations impose on the productive, private sectors of the economy, the regulations amount to a government credit allocation scheme. As Ludwig von Mises explained well in the Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, governmental credit allocation is a misdirection of credit which leads to malinvestment and contributes to an artificial boom and bust cycle. Nobel laureate Frederick A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard expounded on this idea.
government
Building Highways Is State Function
1 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 34:2
I would like to remind my colleagues that in the 1950s when the Federal highway program started it was recognized that it was an improper function of the Federal Government. Therefore the Congress back then, they were still recognizing that the Constitution had some effect as well as the President; they had to come up for a reason for the highway projects, so they did it under national defense.
government
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 35:3
A broader but related question is whether or not it is the government’s role to mold behavior, any more than it is the government’s role to mold, regulate, tax and impede voluntary economic contractual arrangements.
government
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 35:5
Yet we casually assume it is the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly. A large number of us in this Chamber do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it is the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun.
government
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 35:7
While some Members are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a fairer society, there are others here who are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a good society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians and bureaucrats know what is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched, why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well? Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner as well. Especially we who champion the cause of limited government ought not be the promoters of the roving eye of Big Brother.
government
Random Drug Testing Of House Members And Staff Is Ill-Advised
21 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 35:10
Those promoting these drug testing rules are well motivated, just as are those who promote economic welfare legislation. Members with good intentions attempting to solve social problems perversely use government power and inevitably hurt innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few.
government
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be worrying.
government
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 36:5
We do have to remember there is another half to taxation and that is the spending half. It is politically unpopular to talk about spending. It is politically very popular to talk about the taxes. So, yes, we are for lower taxes, but we also have to realize that the government is too big. They are consuming 50 percent of our revenues and our income today, and that is the problem.
government
Follow The Constitution — Don’t Raise Taxes
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 36:6
Government can pay for these bills in three different ways. One, they can tax us. One, they can borrow. And one, they can have the tax of inflation, which is indeed a tax. We are dealing here only with one single tax. But eventually, when we make a sincere effort to get this government under control, we will look at all three areas.
government
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 37:6
I talked to a youngster just this past weekend in the farm community in my district, and he told me he just sold an animal for $1,200 and he has to give $340 to the U.S. Government. Now, what are we doing, trying to destroy the incentive for these youngsters assuming some responsibility for themselves? Instead, what do we do? We say the only way a youngster could ever go to college is if we give them a grant, if we give them a scholarship, if we give them a student loan. And what is the record on payment on student loans? Not very good. A lot of them walk away.
government
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 37:7
There is also the principle of it. Why should the Federal Government be involved in this educational process? And besides, the other question is, if we give scholarships and low-interest loans to people who go to college, what we are doing is making the people who do not get to go to college pay for that education, which to me does not seem fair. It seems like that the advantage goes to the individual who gets to go to college, and the people who do not get to go to college should not have to subsidize them.
government
Education In America Is Facing Crisis
22 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 37:12
Also, I would like to mention very briefly another piece of legislation that would deal with this educational crisis. The Federal Government has been involved in our public schools for several decades. There is no evidence to show that, as we increase the funding and increase the bureaucracy, that there has been any improvement in education. Quite to the contrary, the exact opposite has happened.
government
Don’t Bail Out Bankers
23 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 38:2
Think about it. Some of you would like to spend that on the military, on national defense. That would not be too bad an idea. Others might want to spend it on domestic welfare programs. This would be a better idea than bailing out rich bankers and foreign governments. Besides, there are some of us who would like to give the $53 billion back to the American people and lower their taxes. But to give them another $18 billion does not make any sense.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:5
We are endlessly told no inflation exists. But inflation is strictly and always a monetary phenomenon and not something that can be measured by a government consumer or producer price index.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:7
In spite of Government reports showing food prices are not rising, many constituents I talk to tell me food prices are always going up. It seems every family has difficulty compensating for the high cost of living and taxes are always inflating.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:11
Although the money supply has been significantly increased in the past 16 years and financial prices as well as other prices have gone up, Government officials continue to try to reassure the American people that there is no inflation to worry about because price increases, as measured by the Government’s CPI and PPI, are not significantly rising.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:14
A lot of foreign money has been used to buy our stocks, one of the consequences of computer-age financial technology and innovations. Our negative trade balance allows foreign governments to accumulate large amounts of our treasury debt. This serves to dampen the bad effect of our monetary inflation on domestic prices, while providing reserves for foreign central banks to further expand their own credit.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:16
Some of the euphoria that adds to the financial bubble on Wall Street and internationally is based on optimistic comments made by our government officials. Political leaders remind us time and again that our budget is balanced and the concern now is how to spend the excess. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the money that is being used to offset the deficit comes from our trust funds.
government
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.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:27
A good example of how interventionism leads to the destruction of a market can be seen in the recent tobacco fiasco. First, the tobacco industry accepted subsidies and protectionism to build a powerful and wealthy industry. Then, having conceded this “nanny” role to the government, Big Tobacco had no defense when it was held liable for illnesses that befell some of the willing users of tobacco products. Now, the current plan of super taxation on tobacco users will allow the politicians to bail out the individual farmers who may be injured by reduced use of tobacco products (destruction of the market). This half-trillion-dollar tax proposal hardly solves the problem.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:28
Just as in the 1920’s today’s productivity has fooled some economists by keeping prices down on certain items. Certainly computer prices are down because the price of computer-power has dropped drastically, yet this should not be interpreted as an “absence” of inflation. Innovation has kept prices down in the computer industry, but it fails to do so when government becomes overly involved as it has in other technological areas, such as medical technology, where prices have gone up for services such as MRIs and CAT scans, not down.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:30
Even though Japan first recognized signs of difficulty nine years ago, their problems linger because they have not allowed the liquidation of debt, or the elimination of over capacity, or the adjustment for real estate prices that would occur if the market were permitted to operate free of government intervention. The U.S. did the same thing in the 1930s, and I suspect we will do exactly what Japan is doing once our problems become more pressing. With our own problems from the inflation of the last 15 years now becoming apparent, their only answer so far is to inflate even more.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:36
THE END IN SIGHT? Reassurance that all is well is a strategy found at the end of a boom cycle. Government revenues are higher than anticipated, and many are feeling richer than they are. The more inflated the stock market is as a consequence of credit creation, the less, reliable these markets are at predicting future economic events. Stock markets can be good predictors of the future, but the more speculative they become, the less likely it is the markets will reveal what the world will be like next year.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:51
The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:55
The debate so often seems only to be who should get the expanded credit, the business-banking community or the welfare recipients who will receive it indirectly through the monetization of an ever-expanding government deficit. In Washington there is a craving for power and influence, and this motivates some a lot more than their public display of concern for helping the poor.
government
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:58
Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation.
government
Clean Needles And Risky Behavior
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 40:8
Same thing with alcohol and safety. This is the reason we have so much government regulation dealing with helmet laws and seat belts and buzzers and beepers and air bags. So this concept has to be dealt with if we are ever to get to the bottom of this.
government
Social Security Numbers And Student Loans
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 41:4
In 1974, it was stated rather explicitly that the Social Security number should not be used for programs like this, and I would like to just quote the Privacy Act of 1974: “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:4
There are 40 Federal programs now where the Social Security number is required. Not only that, the Federal Government now has been mandating the uses of the Social Security number for similar purposes even on State programs such as obtaining our driver’s license.
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:5
The concern that I have and that many Americans have is that government is too intrusive, wants too many records and knows too much about everybody. The government and nongovernment people can get our names and they can get our Social Security numbers and find out more about us than we know about ourselves, and that is not the intent of our Constitution. It certainly is not the intent of the Privacy Act.
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:7
We should not have an identity card to carry our papers to get jobs, open bank accounts, move about the country, but we are moving rapidly in that direction. This is a token effort to make this point and require the government to use some other identification method for this program. It can be done. There is nothing sacred about the Social Security number. The program can be run without the use of Social Security.
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:9
“It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.”
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:11
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual disclose his Social Security number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority the number is listed and what uses will be made of it.” We do not have that happening. Numbers are just demanded, and too many people have complied with it, and we go along with it, but more and more Americans are getting upset with this monitoring of everything that we do through the Social Security number.
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:12
Every single government program is now requiring it. Like I said, there are 40, 40 programs. Immigration, think about how the immigration programs are monitored through Social Security numbers. There have been attempts to use the Social Security number to monitor people in their voting. We do not need this. We do not need more government surveillance in promoting this kind of a program. The program can survive, can work.
government
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 42:14
Well, it is not difficult for me to figure that out, and it is not like I am saying this program would not exist, it is just saying that we will put a small amount of surveillance on this where the government is not so casual in expanding its role for the Social Security number.
government
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:14
We lose 37,000 people on highways every year, government-managed highways. And 36,000 people die each year from guns. But we do not take the guns away from the innocent people because there are gun accidents and gun deaths. It is 36,000 in comparison to 6,000.
government
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:26
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.
government
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 46:8
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.
government
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 46:10
I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues.
government
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 46:11
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.
government
Wasting Money On War On Drugs
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 46:15
We cannot get rid of teenage illegitimacy by writing a national law against teenage pregnancy. We are not likely, we have not been able to get rid of drug usage, teenage drug usage, by writing national laws and coming down with the armed might of the Federal Government. So I do not think the current process is going to work.
government
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.
government
Support The National Right To Work Act
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 48:4
Passage of the National Right to Work Act would be a major step forward in ending Congress’ illegitimate interference in the labor markets and liberating America’s economy from heavy-handed government intervention. Since Congress created this injustice, we have the moral responsibility to work to end it, Mr. Speaker.
government
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:5
The most objectionable program is “teacher training.” The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to dictate, or “encourage,” states and localities to adopt certain methods of education. Yet, this Congress is preparing to authorize the federal government to bribe states, with monies the federal government should never have taken from the people in the first place, to adopt teacher training methods favored by a select group of DC-based congressmen and staffers.
government
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:9
Another unconstitutional interference in higher education within HR 6 is the provision creating new features mandates on institutes of higher education regarding the reporting of criminal incidents to the general public. Once again, the federal government is using its funding of higher education to impose unconstitutional mandates on colleges and universities.
government
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:14
Mr. Chairman, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 expand the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education by increasing federal control over higher education, as well as creating a new teacher training program. This bill represents more of the same, old “Washington knows best” philosophy that has so damaged American education over the past century. Congress should therefore reject this bill and instead join me in working to defund all unconstitutional programs and free Americans from the destructive tax and monetary policies of the past few decades, thus making higher education more readily available and more affordable for millions of Americans.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a “rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:4
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:8
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:11
As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:12
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to “take care” of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls results whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:14
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:16
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:20
MESSAGE What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do all the countries of the world, we are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to deliberately destroy it, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:4
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990’s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:12
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to take care of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls result whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever — all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:14
The United States has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military does not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime — on the other side of the world — and pretend we have all the answers? Putting aside the question of whether there is proper authority or not, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The IMF is seen as an extension of the United States and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military that with the demonstrators. No government, even the questionable ones, likes to see any dissolution of governmental power. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not as if the U.S. Government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world — a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:16
The Indonesian Government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not as good as gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, with its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board tied to the U.S. dollar is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
government
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:20
MESSAGE What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do almost all the countries of the world. We are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment — at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar, will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to destroy it deliberately, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
government
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.
government
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.
government
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not a complicated amendment. It merely redesignates the priorities of governments as they line up in the receiving end of a bankruptcy. These are unsecured debts.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:2
Basically the way the law states now and the way the bill is written is that the IRS is the top government agency that is going to receive the money, and then the State and then the local government. My suggestion in my amendment is very simple and very clear and makes a very strong philosophic point, is why should we hold the IRS in such high esteem? Why should they be on top of the list? Why should the money leave the local districts and go to Washington? Why should it go into the coffers of the IRS, funding programs that are basically unconstitutional when there are so many programs that we are not doing and take it out of our school districts?
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:3
If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:4
Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:5
One of the arguments used against this amendment is, “Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.” Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:6
Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 56:7
In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond by saying I certainly do recognize responsibility of the U.S. Congress in dealing with national legislation dealing with bankruptcy and that bankruptcy laws should be uniform and fair. But this does not preclude us from thinking about the particulars of a piece of legislation designating the importance of the different governmental bodies, so everything I say about emphasizing local government over Federal Government is certainly legitimate and does not contradict in any way the notion that we should not deal with this at all because certainly we have this authority to do so.
government
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2
10 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 57:4
So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.
government
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:3
In the name of the politically popular cause of protecting children against sex crimes, the Members of Congress will vote on whether to move the Nation further down the path of centralized-Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress hoping to gain political favor with those embracing some politically popular cause. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 is no exception.
government
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:4
Who, after all, can stand on the house floor and oppose a bill which is argued to make the world safer for children with respect to crimes? It is a sad commentary when members of this body only embrace or even mention federalism when it serves their own political purposes and, at the same time, consciously ignore federalism’s implications for these politically popular causes. It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All that now seems to matter is that Congress pass a new law.
government
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.
government
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:7
The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that centralized federal involvement in crime prevention and control was dangerous and would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The bill’s implication of federal monitoring of conversation on phone lines, the Internet, and U.S. mail is frightening and opens the door to unlimited government snooping.
government
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:3
But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller government, less influence of the government on everything that we do in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is always being involved.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:5
More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an incentive to invest.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:6
Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government to spend one’s money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the problems much worse.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:7
Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed upon.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:8
There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. They have a legitimate right to come here.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 59:9
Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.
government
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:7
In order to offset the so-called “cost to government” (revenue loss) H.R. 2646 alters the rules by which businesses are taxed on employee vacation benefits. While I support efforts to ensure that tax cuts do not increase the budget deficit, the offset should come from cuts in wasteful, unconstitutional government programs, such as foreign aid and corporate welfare. Congress should give serious consideration to cutting unconstitutional programs such as “Goals 2000” which runs roughshod over the rights of parents to control their children’s education, as a means of offsetting the revenue loss to the treasury from this bill. A less than 3% cut in the National Endowment for the Arts budget would provide more funding than needed for the education IRA section of this legislation.
government
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:13
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.
government
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.
government
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:3
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading — in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing — increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:4
If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same flawed policy. That is, because government “must” pay the health costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes, government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:5
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.
government
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:3
I suspect we will be talking about campaign finance reform for a couple more months. I see this somewhat differently than others. Others see that all we have to do is regulate the money and we are going to solve all our problems. But all governments are prone to be influenced by special interests. That is the nature of government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:4
So the smaller government that you have, the less influence you have and the less effort there is made to influence the government. But when you have a big government, there will be a lot of people and a lot of groups that will want to influence government, and that is where I see the problem.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:6
I think there is a good reason for that. They were addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. And the cause is, of course, that big government is involved in every aspect of our lives, our personal lives, our economic lives, and also around the world, influencing almost every government in the world. So not only is there an incentive for business people to come here to influence our government, but there are labor groups that come to influence our government. We have international groups and other governments coming to influence us. And until that is settled, we can rest assured that we will continue to have these problems.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 64:7
But there is another problem that I want to address, and that is the decreased interest in campaigns and elections. Thirty years ago we would have 30 some percent of the people would turn out in the primary elections. Today it is less than 20 percent. It is a steady decline. There is good reason for this because as government gets bigger and as money becomes more influential, and money talks, the little people who have their desires and their voices unheard and want to be heard, they feel very frustrated. So it is understandable and expected that there will be lower and lower turnout in our elections. That is exactly what is happening.
government
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 65:3
[From the New York Times, June 19, 1998] EVERY CURRENCY CRUMBLES (By James Grant) Currencies, being made of paper, are highly flammable, and governments are forever trying to put out the fires. Thus a half decade before the bonfire of the baht, the rupiah and the yen, there was the conflagration of the markka, the lira and the pound. The dollar, today’s global standard of value, was smoldering ominously as recently as 1992.
government
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 65:6
Currency management is a political art. The intrinsic value of a unit of currency is the cost of the paper and printing. The stated value of a unit of currency derives from the confidence of the holder in the promises of the issuing government.
government
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express skepticism regarding H.R. 4105, The Internet Tax Freedom Act. The stated goal of H.R. 4105 certainly is noble: “A bill to establish a national policy against State and local interference with interstate commerce on the Internet, to exercise congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of commerce via the Internet, to establish a national policy against federal and state regulation of Internet access and online services, and for other purposes.” The bill’s name, “Tax Freedom,” also expresses a laudable notion. One must always be wary of misnomers in Washington — the Justice Department comes to mind as one quick example. The late economic historian, Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D., so warned when he stated “when someone in government mentions the word ‘fairness’, grab your wallet and run for the hills.”
government
Internet Tax Freedom Act
23 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 66:3
However laudable the stated goal of tax freedom this bill still encroaches on state’s right to raise revenue and reserves instead (establishes) an exclusive right for national and international governments to instead impose the “proper” form of taxation and distribute it to local governments as these larger governmental bodies ultimately see fit. At the same time, this particular bill rewards those states which were quick to tax their citizens by “grandfathering” their taxes while excluding other States’ rights to do so certainly making this a bill that lacks uniformity.
government
Issue Ads
14 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 67:6
There is a tremendous incentive to send all this money up here. Unless we deal with the incentive, we cannot deal with the problem. So, so far, almost all the talk that we have heard on this campaign finance reform is dealing with the symptom. The cause is Government is too big. Government is so big there is a tremendous incentive for people to invest this money. So as long as we do not deal with that problem, we are going to see a tremendous amount of money involved.
government
Issue Ads
14 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 67:9
So I think that we are misguided when we talk only about the money and not dealing with the incentive to spend the money, and that is big government. All the rules in the world will not change these problems. We had a tremendous amount of rules and laws written since the early 1970s and all it has done is compounded our problems.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 75:2
This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:4
The establishment of a national standard for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is forced to conform their birth certificates or drivers’ licenses to federal standards, it is unlikely they will not comply when failure to conform to federal specifications means none of that state’s residents may get a job, receive Social Security, or even leave the state by plane? Thus, rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing states into complying with federal dictates.
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:5
Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:6
I ask my colleagues what would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to America would soon have the power to demand that all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID?
government
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 76:8
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act. I thank Congressman BARR for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:5
It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into effect at approximately the same time that the Department of Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be transporting a teenager.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:12
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:14
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to a point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:15
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 3682.
government
National Right To Work Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.
government
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 79:3
The reason why we have to support this amendment is it is a modest, just a small step in the direction of openness in government, a little bit of accountability, a little bit of oversight. The idea that we can create a fund in 1934 and have essentially no oversight for all these years, I just wonder how many billions, probably hundreds of billions, of dollars that have come and gone in and out and all the mischief it has caused. It was originally set up to stabilize the dollar. And what does it do, as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned earlier, stabilizes the yen.
government
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 79:15
If for no other reason, if my colleagues disagree with all the economic arguments, there should be nobody that should disagree with the fact that we have a responsibility for open government. That is what this issue is all about, and that is what this amendment makes an attempt to do is try to at least get it back to where we will be responsible for our acts.
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:3
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of my colleagues, understand that private charities are also much better able to target assistance to the truly needy than government programs, which are burdened with bureaucratic rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed to protect the “due process” rights of recipients, which cannot be adequately changed to meet unique individual circumstances. Thus, many people who are genuinely needy do not receive needed help. In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living below the poverty level receive no government assistance. Private charities can also be more effective because they do not have to fulfill administrative requirements, such as the WIC program’s rebate system, which actually divert resources from the needy.
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:4
Private charities are also able to place an emphasis upon reformation of personal behavior while not imposing the controls on personal life that government programs, such as WIC, impose on the program recipients. When a pregnant woman signs up to receive WIC vouchers, she is trading away a large amount of her personal freedom. Her choices of where to shop will be restricted to WIC-approved vendors and her choice of what foods to buy will be restricted to those foods which match the WIC nutrition specifications. WIC recipients are also required to participate in WIC parenting and nutrition classes.
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!
government
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.
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:7
According to the Congressional Research Service, food vendors participating in WIC received 9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75% of the total funds spent on the WIC program! This fiscal year, producers of food products approved by the federal government for purchase by WIC participants are expected to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars! Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my office to discuss WIC were not advocates for the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons for corporate interests!
government
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 81:9
The main reason supporters of a free and moral society must oppose this bill is because federal welfare programs crowd out the more efficient private charities for two reasons. First, the taxes imposed on the American people in order to finance these programs leave taxpayers with fewer resources to devote to private charity. Secondly, the welfare state erodes the ethic of charitable responsibility as citizens view aiding the poor as the government’s role, rather than a moral obligation of the individual.
government
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.
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:3
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:5
Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:6
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:8
For those who claim that the Patient Privacy Act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
government
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
government
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”
government
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:3
While I was not here in 1996 when the medical ID was authorized, it is my understanding that this provision was part of a large bill rushed through Congress without much debate. I am glad that Congress has decided to at least take a second look at this proposal and its ramifications. I am quite confident that, after Congress hears from the millions of Americans who object to a national ID, my colleagues will do the right thing and pass legislation forbidding the federal government from instituting a “uniform standard health identifier.”
government
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:11
However, as much as I support H.R. 4250’s expansion of MSA’s, I equally object to those portions of the bill placing new federal standards on employer offered health care plans. Proponents of these standards claim that they will not raise cost by more than a small percentage point. However, even an increase of a small percentage point could force many marginal small businesses to stop offering health care for their employees, thus causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance. This will then lead to a new round of government intervention. Unlike Medical Savings Accounts which remove the HMO bureaucracy currently standing between physicians and patients, the so-called patient protections portions of this bill add a new layer of government-imposed bureaucracy. For example, H.R. 4250 guarantees each patient the right to external and internal review of insurance company’s decisions. However, this does not empower patients to make their own decisions. If both external and internal review turn down a patient’s request for treatment, the average patient will have no choice but to accept the insurance companies decision. Furthermore, anyone who has ever tried to navigate through a government-controlled “appeals process” has reason to be skeptical of the claims that the review process will be completed in less than three days. Imposing new levels of bureaucracy on HMO’s is a poor substitute for returning to the American people the ability to decide for themselves, in consultation with their care giver, what treatments are best for them. Medical Savings Accounts are the best patient protection.
government
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:12
Perhaps the biggest danger these regulations pose is ratification of the principle that guaranteeing a patients’ access to physicians is the proper role for the government, thus opening the door for further federal control of the patient-physician relationship. I ask my physician-colleagues who support this regulation, once we have accepted the notion that federal government can ensure patients have access to our services, what defense can we offer when the government places new regulations and conditions on that access?
government
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.
government
Ballot Access — Part 1
30 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 90:6
If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government, we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment.
government
Banking Regulations
4 August 1998 1998 Ron Paul 93:9
A better approach is to lead the congress toward lower taxes and less regulation — on credit unions, banks and other financial institutions. H.R. 1151, The Credit Union Membership Access Act, as amended by the senate, takes us one step in the right direction of less government regulation restricting individual choice. We must continue on the path of fewer regulations and lower taxes.
government
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal Government’s role in education.
government
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 96:2
I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people in those communities.
government
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 96:3
The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.
government
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 96:4
Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control be restored.
government
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.
government
Worldwide Financial Crisis
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 97:3
These events only occur when governments and central banks are given arbitrary authority to create money and credit out of thin air. Paper money systems are notoriously unstable; and the longer they last, the more vulnerable they are to sudden and sharp downturns.
government
Worldwide Financial Crisis
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 97:6
The current system eventually promotes overcapacity and debt that cannot be sustained. The result is a slump, a recession, or even a depression. When the government makes an effort to prevent a swift, sharp correction, the agony of liquidation is prolonged and deepened. This is what is happening in Japan and other Asian countries today. We made the same mistake in the 1930s.
government
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 2206, which reauthorizes the Head Start program, as well as the Community Services Block Grant program and the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). While the goals of Head Start and the Community Services Block Grant program are certainly noble, the means these programs use to accomplish these goals (confiscating monies from one group of citizens and sending them to another group of citizens in the form of federal funding for Washington-controlled programs) are immoral and ineffective. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to fund any programs concerning child-rearing or education. Under the constitutional system, these matters are left solely in the hands of private citizens, local government, and the individual states.
government
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.
government
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:3
When the federal government becomes involved in funding a program such as Head Start, it should at least respect local autonomy by refraining from interfering with the ability of local communities to fashion a program that suits their needs. After all, federal funding does not change the fact that those who work with a group of children on a daily basis are the best qualified to design a program that effectively serves those children. Therefore, I must strongly object to the provisions in S. 2206 that requires the majority of Head Start classroom teachers to have an Associate or Bachelors degree in early childhood education by 2003. This provision may raise costs and/or cause some good Head Start teachers to lose their positions simply because they lack the credentials a Washington-based “expert” decided they needed to serve as a Head Start instructor.
government
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:8
Since S. 2206 furthers the federal government’s unconstitutional role of controlling early childhood education by increasing federal micro-management of the Head Start program, furthers government intrusions into religious institutions and redistributes income from Texans to citizens of other states through the LIHEAP program, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead join me in defunding all unconstitutional programs and cutting taxes so the American people may create social service programs that best meet the needs of low-income children and families in their communities.
government
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government’s control over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress should reject this bill.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:3
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies are spent “in the classroom,” (a term not defined in the act) and report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the Federal Government for their management of educational programs.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:5
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example of “mandate federalism” where states are given flexibility to determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states the authority to select a particular form of federal management of education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:6
The federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:7
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:8
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
government
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade representative. The bill would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional “executive authority” to negotiate “side agreements” such as those dealing with environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a number of businesses which recently benefitted by a favorable judgment in federal tax court.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated powers, regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas, and embargoes, however economically detrimental to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary exchanges between trading partners who happen to be citizens of different governments. International agreements between the governments of those trading partners cannot be construed to escape the stringent treaty ratification process established by the document’s framers just by suggesting Congress has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding foreign commerce. If this were an allowable justification for bypassing the constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I Congressional powers would almost completely undermine the necessity for the Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties regarding everything from international monetary policy to military policy would suddenly become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power of the President and Congress. Instead, a bright line process exists whereby entering into agreements with foreign nations under which the U.S. government will do “X” if the government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood to constitute an international agreement and, as such, require the more restrictive treaty process.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:5
Moreover, because international courts regard “treaties” and “agreements” as equally binding on signatory governments, a stronger case is made that they must be made subject to the same constitutional process. Insofar as H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional role in the international treaty process and instead attempts to make Congress an integral part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional authority, this bill can be opposed on constitutional grounds alone.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:8
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
government
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:9
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialist Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve orchestrated bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP raises serious policy questions. At one point, the notional value of the Cayman Island-registered fund’s derivatives totalled about $1.2 trillion. We should look seriously at this issue because of the taxpayer-backed liability concerns raised by the involvement of an agency with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The state of Michigan has taken a constructive first step regarding the public policy concerns of derivatives. I urge us to consider the wisdom of the State Representative Greg Kaza as we debate this issue.
government
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.
government
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 105:4
Three years ago I addressed the very same issue in Michigan by authoring state legislation that provided increased transparency by requiring units of government to disclose their derivative holdings to the public. Government units have to make investment decisions regarding the money they receive or retain; unfortunately, investment practices and decisions can sometimes lead to significant losses when taxdollars are unwisely invested in derivatives. Orange County in California and Independence Township in Oakland County, Michigan are both examples of government units that experienced significant losses as a result of the imprudent use of derivatives.
government
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 105:5
Initially, some of my colleagues wondered whether a ban or restriction on the use of derivatives would be preferable. But committee testimony soon convinced them that derivatives, although complex, are used by many institutions, including government pension funds, to prudently hedge risk. Our five-bill package required public disclosure of derivative holdings by government units. The legislation garnered bi-partisan sponsorship and support, and ultimately became state law.
government
Iraq — Part 2
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 108:5
But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
government
Lake Texana
7 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, moments ago, HR 4570 was described as a “delicate balance” not to be disturbed by votes against either the resolution or the rule. In fact, the primary justification presented for passage of the bill was the “brilliance” with which a compromise securing the necessary number of votes was “engineered.” Statements such as these are an unfortunate commentary on the state of affairs in the nation’s capital insofar as they represent not advancement of sound policy principles but rather a seriously flawed process by which federal government “favors” are distributed in a means which assures everyone gets a little something if they vote to give enough other districts a little something too. This is not the procedure by which Congress should be deciding matters of federal land disposition and acquisition. In fact, there appears to be no Constitutional authority for most of what HR 4570 proposes to do.
government
Lake Texana
7 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).
government
Lake Texana
7 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 111:3
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation. This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43 million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:4
I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:6
My amendment forbids the federal government from creating federal IDs for doctors and employers as well as for individuals. Contrary to the claims of some, federal-ID numbers for doctors and employers threaten American liberty every bit as much as individual medical IDs.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:7
The National Provider ID will force physicians who use technologies such as e-mail in their practices to record all health care transactions with the government. This will allow the government to track and monitor the treatment of all patients under that doctor’s care. Government agents may pull up the medical records of a patient with no more justification than a suspicion the provider is involved in fraudulent activity unrelated to that patient’s care!
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:8
The National Standard Employer Identifier will require employers to record employees’ private health transactions in a database. This will allow coworkers, hackers, government agents and other unscrupulous persons to access the health transactions of every employee in a company simply by typing the company’s identifier into their PC!
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:9
Many of my colleagues admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:10
This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:12
Last September, NCVHS proposed guidelines for the development of the medical ID. Those guidelines required that all predecisional documents “should be kept in strict confidence and not be shared or discussed,” This is a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all working documents to be made public. Although NCVHS, succumbing to public pressure and possible legal action against it, recently indicated it will make its pre-decisional documents available in compliance with federal law, I hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee agree that the NCVHS attempt to evade the will of Congress and keep its work secret does not bode well for any future attempts to protect the medical ID from abuse by government officials.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:14
For those who claim that this amendment would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, under the Constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
government
National Provider ID
8 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.
government
New Global Economic Plan
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 117:10
Third this plan calls for an international government agreement to strictly control capital flows and mandate debt forgiveness in contrast to allowing countries to default. Controlling swift movements of capital is impossible and any attempt only encourages world government through planning by a world fiat monetary system. Any temporary “benefit” can only be achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the world economy, all done with the pretense of preserving financial stability at the expense of national sovereignty and personal liberty.
government
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 118:5
Mr. Speaker, I also support the language of the bill expanding the health care options available to veterans’ benefits. Ensuring the nation’s veterans have a quality health care system should be one of the governments’ top priorities. In fact, I am currently working on a plan to improve veterans’ health care by allowing them greater access to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). However, I cannot, in good conscience, support the proposals before us today because, for all their good intentions, it is fatally flawed in implementation for it attempts to offset its new spending with a tax increase.
government
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 118:6
Now I know many of the bill’s supporters will claim that this is not a tax increase just an adjustment in the qualifications for a tax benefit or tightening a tax loophole. However, the fact is that by raising the threshold before a taxpayer can rollover their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA the federal government is forcing some people to pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, thus they are raising taxes. It is morally wrong for Congress to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to provide benefits for another group of Americans.
government
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 118:8
Similarly, Congress should seek funds for an increased expenditure on home care by ending federal support for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which benefit wealthy bankers and powerful interests but not the American people. At a time when the federal government continues to grow to historic heights and meddles in every facet of American life I cannot believe that Congress cannot find expenditure cuts to finance the programs in this bill!
government
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:8
And playing to the other side of the political spectrum, Clinton has consistently and strongly supported the expansion of harassment and discrimination law, an expansion that has in recent years increasingly worked to criminalize behavior that government once regarded as private. Well, at least he supported such law until the case of Jones v. Clinton arose.
government
Rights Of The Individual
14 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 119:11
In 1996 the FBI recorded 1,281 “crimes against persons” for reasons of sexual-orientation bias. Two of these were murders and 222 were aggravated assaults. Four hundred and seventy-two of what the government termed hate crimes were not assaults but “acts of intimidation.” These latter would not be crimes except for the determination that expressions of certain prejudices and hatreds were in themselves criminal offenses.
government
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 120:10
If the problem were merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the luck few, benefits are received when government inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.
government
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 120:14
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.
government
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 120:17
Fourth, policy elsewhere must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed.
government
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 120:19
Short of a free market, sound money approach will guarantee a sustained attack on personal liberty as governments grow more authoritarian and militaristic.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:5
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the Federal Government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of Federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:10
Furthermore, the Federal Government’s power to treat State governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a State’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates in exchange for Federal funding!
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:11
As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:12
Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal Government.
government
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.
government
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 124:11
As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the government of a sovereign nation.
government
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 124:12
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political purposes.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:4
For nearly six years there has been a steady and growing concern about the legal actions of the President. These charges seem almost endless: possible bribery related to Webb Hubble, foreign government influence in the 1996 presidential election, military technology given to China, FBI files, travel office irregularities, and many others. Many Americans are not satisfied that Congress has fully investigated the events surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:5
The media and the administration has concentrated on the sexual nature of the investigation and this has done a lot to distract from everything else. The process has helped to make the President appear to be a victim of government prosecutorial overkill while ignoring the odious significance of the 1,000 FBI files placed for political reasons in the White House. If corruption becomes pervasive in any administration, yet no actual fingerprints of the president are found on indicting documents, there must come a time when the “CEO” becomes responsible for the actions of his subordinates. That is certainly true in business, the military, and in each congressional office.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:9
The public’s acceptance of the President’s behavior may reflect the moral standards of our age, but I’m betting there’s a lot more to it. It is true that some conservative voters, demanding the Republicans in Congress hold the President to a greater accountability, “voted” by staying home. They did not want to encourage the Republicans who were seen as being soft on Clinton for his personal behavior and for capitulating on the big government agenda of more spending, and more taxes. But hopefully there is a much more profound reason for the seemingly inconsistent position of a public who condemns the President while not having the stomach for punishing him through impeachment.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:10
If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:11
The political contest, as it has always been throughout history, remains between the desire for security and the love for liberty. When economic security is provided by the government, privacy and liberty must be sacrificed. The longer a welfare state lasts the greater the conflict between government intrusiveness and our privacy. Government efficiency and need for its financing through a ruthless tax system prompts the perpetual barrage of government agents checking on everything we do.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:12
Fortunately, the resentment toward government for its meddling in all aspects of our lives is strong and becoming more galvanized, and that should give us hope that all is not lost.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:14
The “sympathy”, if that’s what we want to call it, for the President reflects the instinctive nature of most Americans who resent the prying eyes of big government. It’s easy to reason: “If the President of the United States can be the subject of a ‘sting operation’ and FBI ordered tape recordings, how can any of us be secure in our homes and papers?”
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:19
Hopefully, the concept of the overly aggressive prosecutor will be condemned when it comes to overly aggressive activities of all the federal police agencies whether it’s the IRS, the BATF or any other authoritarian agency of the federal government.
government
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:21
Even though we might claim a victory of sorts, the current impeachment process reveals a defeat for our political system and our society. Since lack of respect for the Constitution is pervasive throughout the Administration, the Congress and the Courts and reflects the political philosophy of the past 60 years, dealing with the President alone, won’t reverse the course on which we find ourselves. There are days when I think we should consider “impeaching” not only the President, but the Congress and the Judiciary. But the desired changes will come only after the people’s attitudes change as to what form of government they desire. When the people demand privacy, freedom and individual responsibility for everyone alike, our government will reflect these views. Hopefully we can see signs in these current events that more Americans are becoming serious about demanding their liberty and rejecting the illusions of government largesse as a panacea.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999. This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens. This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers’ licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:3
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:7
Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting the federal government from using identifiers to monitor private transactions is necessary to stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” for every American—an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?
government
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.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:9
Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In act, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:10
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:11
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the fact is the only solution is to forbid the federal government from using national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws stop the permanent violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:12
Secondly, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for certain state-favored third parties. For example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient Protection Act established a property right for insurance companies to access personal health care information. Congress also authorized private individuals to receive personal information from government data bases in last year’s copyright bill. The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. Obviously, “private protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information!
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:13
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:15
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:2
Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:31
Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:36
This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the Federal Government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by Federal agents without announcement, and huge fines are levied when Federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:38
Today, it is routine for government to illegally seize property, requiring the victims to prove their innocence in order to retrieve their property, and many times this fails due to the expense and legal roadblocks placed in the victim’s way.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:39
Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:40
The Social Security number is now commonly used for just about everything, getting a birth certificate, buying a car, seeing an MD, getting a job, opening up a bank account, getting a driver’s license, making many routine purchases, and, of course, a death certificate. Cradle-to-the-grave government surveillance is here and daily getting more pervasive.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:41
The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must by its very nature allow this precious right to erode.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:43
The promoters of government instruction into our privacy characteristically use worn out cliches to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:46
Others argue that to operate government programs efficiently and without fraud, close monitoring is best achieved with an universal identifier, the Social Security number.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:47
Efficiency and protection from fraud may well be enhanced with the use of a universal identifier, but this contradicts the whole notion of the proper role for government in a free society.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:48
Most of the Federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:49
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:56
The recent know-your-customer plan was designed by Richard Small, Assistant Director of the Division of Banking Supervision Regulation at the Federal Reserve. He is not happy with all of the complaints that he has received regarding this proposal. His program will require that every bank keep a detailed profile on every customer, as to how much is deposited, where it comes from, and when and how the money is spent. If there is any deviation from the profile on record, the bank is required to report this to a half dozen government agencies, which will require the customer to do a lot of explaining. This program will catch few drug dealers, but will surely infringe on the liberty of every law-abiding citizen.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:59
For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research is made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:62
The disaster state of the public school system has prompted millions of parents to provide private or home schooling for their children. The worse the government schools get, the more the people resort to a private option, even without tax relief from the politicians. This is only possible as long as some remnant of our freedom remains, and these options are permitted. We cannot become complacent.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:63
Hopefully, a similar reaction will occur in the area of privacy, but overcoming the intrusiveness of government into our privacy in nearly every aspect of our lives will be difficult. Home schooling is a relatively simple solution compared to avoiding the roving and snooping high of big brother. Solving the privacy problem requires an awakening by the American people with a strong message being sent to the U.S. Congress that we have had enough.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:68
Credit expansion is the root cause of all financial bubbles. Fiat monetary systems inevitably cause unsustainable economic expansion that results in a recession and/or depression. A correction always results, with the degree and duration being determined by government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy. If wages and prices are not allowed to adjust and the correction is thwarted by invigorated monetary expansion, new and sustained economic growth will be delayed or prevented. Financial dislocation caused by central banks in the various countries will differ from one to another due to political perceptions, military considerations, and reserve currency status.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:76
The conviction that stock prices will continue to provide extra cash and confidence in the economy has fueled wild consumer spending and personal debt expansion. The home refinance index between 1997 and 1999 increased 700 percent. Secondary mortgages are now offered up to 120 percent of a home’s equity, with many of these funds finding their way into the stock market. Generous credit and quasi-government agencies make these mortgage markets robust, but a correction will come when it is realized that the builders and the lenders have gotten ahead of themselves.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:80
Government propaganda promotes the false notion that inflation is no longer a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dangerous financial bubble, a result of the Federal Reserve’s deliberate policy of inflation and the Fed’s argument that there is no inflation according to government-concocted CPI figures, is made to justify a continuous policy of monetary inflation because they are terrified of the consequence of deflation. The Federal Reserve may sincerely believe maintaining the status quo, preventing price inflation and delaying deflation is possible, but it really is not.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:82
A CPI of all consumer items measured by the private source shows approximately a 400 percent increase in prices since 1970. Most Americans realize their dollars are buying less each year and no chance exists for the purchasing power of the dollar to go up. Just because prices of TVs and computers may go down, the cost of medicine, food, stocks and entertainment, and of course, government, certainly can rise rapidly.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:83
One characteristic of an economy that suffers from a constantly debased currency is sluggish or diminished growth in real income. In spite of our so-called great economic recovery, two-thirds of U.S. workers for the past 25 years have had stagnant or falling wages. The demands for poverty relief from government agencies continue to increase. Last year alone, 678,000 jobs were lost due to downsizing. The new service sector jobs found by many of those laid off are rarely as good paying.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:91
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:92
Too often the American people have chosen security over liberty. Allowing the President a little authority to deal with world problems under a U.N. banner has been easier than reversing the trend of the past 50 years. Accepting the financial bubble when on the short run, it helps everyone’s portfolio, helps to finance government spending, is easy, even if it only delays the day of reckoning when the bills come due, as they already have in so many other countries in the world.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:93
Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society.
government
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:94
Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous, and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal.
government
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 5:8
It is a bit ironic now that we are sending or planning to send troops to Kosovo. We have all read about and heard the horrible stories about the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, and yet our troops going to Kosovo are going to be sent with the intention that Kosovo cannot be independent; that they will not be able to separate themselves from Serbia; that they cannot decide under what government they want to live.
government
Introducing The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act
11 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 7:2
Davis-Bacon artificially inflates construction costs through a series of costly work rules and requirements. For instance, under Davis-Bacon, workers who perform a variety of tasks must be paid at the highest applicable skilled journeyman rate. Thus, a general laborer who hammers a nail must now be classified as a “carpenter,” and paid as much as three times the company’s regular rate. As a result of this, unskilled workers can be employed only if the company can afford to pay the government-determined “prevailing wages” and training can be provided only through a highly regulated apprenticeship program. Some experts have estimated the costs of complying with the paperwork imposed on contractors by Davis-Bacon regulations at nearly $200 million a year. Of course, this doesn’t measure the costs in lost job opportunities because firms could not afford to hire an inexperienced worker.
government
Introducing The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act
11 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 7:4
Because most minority-owned construction firms are small companies, Davis-Bacon keeps minority-owned firms from competing for federal construction contracts. The resulting disparities in employment create a demand for affirmative action, another ill-suited and ill-advised big government program.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hand their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the plunge into New Deal Socialism.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:3
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:4
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:5
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions—it is called competition and governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:6
As government becomes more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:7
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 514.
government
Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act
2 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 11:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.
government
Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act
2 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 11:8
Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to improve public schools than funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the public schools. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
Introducing The Teacher Tax Cut Act
2 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 12:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance to education distract us from our important work of removing government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.
government
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:8
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
government
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:10
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
government
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:11
Mr. Speaker, these two bills take a step toward restoring the right of free speech in the marketplace and restoring the American consumer’s control over the means by which they cast their “dollar votes.” In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. The federal government should also not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television on the free market. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Consumer Protection Package: the Consumer Health Free Speech Act and the Television Consumer Freedom Act.
government
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 20:12
Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.
government
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.
government
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 23:3
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other — and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.
government
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 23:4
For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine than that it is the Income Tax which pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee, which provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our army and navy but also has infused them with a patriotism without which our army will become a base rubble and our navy nothing but rotten timber.
government
Peace
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 23:5
All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from begin qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspiciate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is, peace and neutrality alone will makes ours the Republic that it can yet still be.
government
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 24:9
Now we must ask, is our nation on the verge of empire? Some will say no, because, they say, we do not seek to have direct control over the governments of foreign lands, but how close are we to doing just that? And is it so important whether the dictates of empire come from the head of our government or from the Secretary General of some multilateral entity which we direct?
government
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 24:10
Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of governments they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference.
government
Closer To Empire
25 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 24:12
And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?
government
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 27:3
But we must ask, why are taxes high? Taxes are high because government is big. We are dealing with only one-half of the equation. As long as the American people want big government, as long as they want a welfare state, and as long as they believe we should police the world, taxes will remain high.
government
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 27:4
This is a token effort to move in the right direction of eliminating taxes. Big government is financed in three different ways. First, we borrow money. Borrowing is legal under the Constitution, although that was debated at the Constitutional Convention, and the Jeffersonians lost. Someday we should deal with that. We should not be able to borrow to finance big government.
government
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 27:5
Something that we do here in Washington which is also unconstitutional is to inflate the currency to pay for debt. Last year the Federal Reserve bought Treasury debt to the tune of $43 billion. This helps finance big government. This is illegal, unconstitutional, and is damaging to our economy.
government
Why Taxes Are High
15 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 27:7
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for bringing this measure to the floor. I would say this is a modest approach. Today we can raise taxes with a 50 percent vote. I and others would like to make it 100 percent. It would be great if we needed 100 percent of the people to vote to raise taxes. I see this as a modest compromise and one of moderation. So I would say that I strongly endorse this move to make it more difficult in a very modest way. Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) a question. I take it that the gentleman believes that government is too big and that is a function of both what it takes in and what goes out, what it spends out. So would it be fair to say that the gentleman would support a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for expenditures, too?
government
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
20 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
government
Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks
20 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 28:2
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution—a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:7
The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:14
The United States Government has in the past referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders as thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug dealers. This current fight was initiated by Kosovo’s desire for independence from Serbia.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:15
The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:17
The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the interventionists, whose goal is one world government, so determined to defend a questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and independent Tibet, and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:26
War has been used throughout history to enhance the state against the people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce the people into this careless giving up of their liberties.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:28
But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:30
Our overseas efforts to police the world implies that with or without success, resulting injuries and damage imposed by us and others will be rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of more foreign aid, as we always do. Nation building and international social work has replaced national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:31
What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:43
There is no natural tendency for big government to enjoy stability without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system. But eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO’s well-deserved demise. NATO, especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, will find using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:45
Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-member NATO group. When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace loving, and freedom oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO/U.N. system.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:46
The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-communist commitment.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:51
The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politician’s good judgment. And when it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets about the restraints when it is not convenient.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:52
The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent. Likewise, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:53
Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream. It allows arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and property.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:56
NATO’s days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while, but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with a 1-year’s notice. That we ought to do, but we will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come before it is recognized that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments, not by a one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force determined by politically correct reasons and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world.
government
Environmental Regulatory Issues
22 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 31:6
But — and it always seems there is a but — like every promising new movement, the people who became leaders of the environmental movement stimulated by Earth Day soon found they could increase their political power (and staff salaries) by constantly demanding more command and control regulation. That heavyhanded government response has increasingly surpassed the boundaries of science and reason and severely strained the good will of millions of Americans who had eagerly responded to the initial call to clean up and protect our planet.
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an unfortunate and false choice between two evils. The false choice is whether the government should ban voluntary exchange or regulate it — as though these were the only two options. More specifically, today’s choice is whether government should continue to maintain its ban on satellite provision of network programming to television consumers or replace that ban by expanding an anti-market, anti-consumer regulatory regime to the entire satellite television industry.
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:2
H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of contract principles, imposes anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to “re-map the country” and further empowers the National Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to “study the impact” of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets.
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:3
This bill’s title includes the word “competition” but ignores the market processes’ inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price setter — determining prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to satellite programing service providers under the “compulsory license.”
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:4
Unfortunately, this bill expands the government’s role to set the so-called just price for satellite programming. This, of course, is inherently impossible outside the market process of voluntary exchange and has, not surprisingly, resulted instead in “competition” among service providers for government favor rather than consumer-benefiting competition inherent to the genuine market.
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:6
I introduced what I believe is the most pro-consumer, competition-friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere with consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations on satellite service providers to “keep the playing field level,” my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must-carry from the already over-regulated cable industry.
government
On Regulating Satellite TV
27 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 32:7
Genuine competition is a market process and, in a world of scarce resources, it alone best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate that this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate that our only choice with H.R. 1554 is to trade one form of government intervention for another — “ban voluntarily exchange or bureaucratically regulate it?” Unfortunate, indeed.
government
Pell Grants
4 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 37:2
By taxing all Americans in order to provide limited aid to a few, federal higher education programs provide the federal government with considerable power to allocate access to higher education. Government aid also destroys any incentives for recipients of the aid to consider price when choosing a college. The result is a destruction of the price control mechanism inherent in the market, leading to ever-rising tuition. This makes higher education less affordable for millions of middle-class Americans who are ineligible for Pell Grants!
government
Pell Grants
4 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 37:3
Federal funding of higher education also leads to federal control of many aspects of higher education. Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot resist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions beholden to taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by examining today’s higher educational system. College and universities are so fearful of losing federal aid they allow their policies on everything from composition of the student body to campus crime to be dictated by the Federal Government. Clearly, federal funding is being abused as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 41:2
Having failed to implement a national curriculum through the front door with national student testing (thanks to the efforts of members of the Education Committee under the leadership of Chairman GOODLING), the administration is now trying to implement a national curriculum through the backdoor with national teacher testing and certification. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification with the same vigor with which you opposed national student testing.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 41:3
Many educators are already voicing opposition to national teacher cerification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing; I have attached a copy of this resolution for insertion into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 41:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America’s teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 41:6
COALITION OF INDEPENDENT EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS — STATEMENT ON NATIONAL TEACHER LICENSURE, FEBRUARY 26, 1999 The licensure of teachers should remain the responsibility of each state’s Board of Education and any attempt to authorize the federal government to govern this process should be opposed.
government
Tribute To Teachers
6 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Teacher Appreciation week by expressing my appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers and to ask my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. Yesterday I introduced legislation to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession.
government
No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective
13 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called “pragmatic interventionists” has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government’s interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I’ve mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called “war to end all wars.”
government
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 47:3
We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set.
government
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enlist support for a bill I have introduced to repeal statutes which have now resulted in more than one hundred years of government intervention in the marketplace. In 1890, at the behest of Senator Sherman, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed allowing the federal government to intervene in the process of competition, inter alia, whenever a firm captured market share by offering a better product at a lower price. The Market Process Restoration Act of 1999, H.R. 1789, will preclude such intervention.
government
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:2
Antitrust statutes governmentally facilitate interference in the voluntary market transactions of individuals. Evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced gain.
government
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:3
Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the “world of antitrust” as “reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously.” Antitrust is, according to Greenspan “a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, ‘too much’ competition is condemned as ‘cutthroat’. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict — after the fact.” And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality.
government
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:5
One function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from the certain source of monopoly — Government’s grant of exclusive privilege. But, as George Reisman, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management in Los Angeles, explains “everyone, it seems, took for granted the prevailing belief that the essential feature of monopoly is that a given product or service is provided by just one supplier. On this view of things, Microsoft, like Alcoa and Standard Oil before it, belongs in the same category as the old British East India Company or such more recent instances of companies with exclusive government franchises as the local gas or electric company or the U.S. Postal Service with respect to the delivery of first class mail. What all of these cases have in common, and which is considered essential to the existence of monopoly, according to the prevailing view, is that they all represent instances in which there is only one seller. By the same token, what is not considered essential, according to the prevailing view of monopoly, is whether the sellers position depends on the initiation of physical force or, to the contrary, is achieved as the result of freedom of competition and the choice of the market.”
government
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:6
Microsoft, Alcoa,and Standard Oil represent cases of a sole supplier, or at least come close to such a case. However, totally unlike the cases of exclusive government franchises, their position in the market is not (or was not) the result of the initiation of physical force but rather the result of their successful free competition. That is, they became sole suppliers by virtue of being able to produce products profitably at prices too low for other suppliers to remain in or enter the market, or to produce products whose performance and quality others simply could not match.
government
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent’s tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets.
government
National Center For Missing And Exploited Children
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 51:2
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
government
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 52:3
Thanks to the Post Office’s Federal Government-granted monopoly on first-class delivery service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with the Postal Service. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency with a choice: either provide the federal government with your name, address, photograph and social security number, or surrender the right to receive communications from one’s fellow citizens in one’s preferred manner.
government
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 52:5
This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office’s mailbox service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to get a list of their competitor’s customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
government
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 52:7
During the rule’s comment period, more than 8,000 people formally denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However, those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in “interstate commerce,” is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal. Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic privacy.
government
The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
25 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 52:9
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to overturn Post Office’s regulations requiring customers of private mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and social security number. The Federal Government should not force any American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the Congressional Review Act.
government
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 54:13
To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo’s independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens.
government
H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 55:2
Businesses like Mailboxes, etc., must turn the collected information over to the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to force their competitors to provide them with their customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
government
H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 55:4
Mr. Speaker, Congress must do more than talk about how it appreciates small business, it must work to lift the burden of big government from America’s job-creating small businesses. Passing HJ Res 55 and protecting Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies from the Post Offices’ costly and anti-competitive regulations would be a great place to start.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interest by investing in politicians.
government
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.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:5
The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:6
The reformers’ argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:9
Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:10
More regulation of political speech through control of private money without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:11
True, reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize and show preferential treatment.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:12
Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process, but we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more laws. We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their representatives in Congress are duly influenced or unduly influenced, but the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:14
Campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by “investing” in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:15
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but his cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government—legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
government
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.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:19
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we capitulate to the special interest groups.”
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:20
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:26
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral Political Action Committees that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent Members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:27
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 58:28
True reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:2
The flag contains 13 stripes and 50 stars. Those 13 stripes represent the first thirteen states, each of which emanating from colonies of British America. These 13 colonies came together because they were opposed to continued oppression by the British executive and the British parliament. After numerous and significant entreaties seeking reconciliation, the British American came to understand that political independence and local self-government was the only way to insure against the most dangerous of tyrannies.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:3
Was this eternal truth forgotten immediately upon the founding of our nation? Hardly. From the Articles of Confederation through to the original U.S. Constitution a clear understanding of the necessity of the separation of powers was maintained. And the genius of that division of powers lay only so partially in the three federal branches, each reliant upon some different direct authority but all resting government finally on the consent of the governed. Indeed, it has rightly been said that “the genius of the constitution is best summed up in that clause which reserves to the states or to the people those powers which are not specifically delegated to the federal government.”
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:4
So those states came together to form a compact, indeed to form a nation and, they gave specific but limited powers to the federal government. From those original thirteen stars and stripes, representing the individual states, came one. E pluribus unum. And this is what the flag and those stripes represent.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:8
This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:10
Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of “unAmerican” and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:11
To do what is right we must understand and honor the symbol and the sum of our nation. We must contemplate the flag and the constitution, both of which point us to the key basis of liberty that can be found only in local self-government. Our flag and our constitution both honor and symbolize federalism and when we undermine federalism we dishonor our flag, our constitution and our heritage.
government
Flag Day 1999
14 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 59:12
The men who founded our nation risked the ultimate price for freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to the founding of a republic based on local self-government. We should honor them, our republic and its most direct symbol, our U.S. flag by taking a stand against any rule, law or constitutional amendment which would expand the role of our federal government.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:6
There are no authentic anti-gun proponents in this debate. The only argument is who gets the guns, the people or the Federal bureaucrats. Proponents of more gun laws want to transfer the guns to the 80,000 and growing Federal Government officials who make up the national police force.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:11
Number two, public school violence has increased since the Federal government took over the public school system.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:12
Number three, discipline is difficult due to the rules, regulations, and threats of lawsuits as a consequence of Federal Government involvement in public education.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:15
Number six, the government’s practice of using violence to achieve social goals condones its use. All government welfare is based on the threat of government violence.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:17
Number eight, the Federal government’s role in Waco and the burning alive of innocent children in the name of doing good sends a confused message to our youth.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:18
Number nine, government’s role in defending and even paying to kill a half-born child cannot but send a powerful message to our young people that all life is cheap, both that of the victims and the perpetrators of violence.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:19
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.
government
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 60:20
Ultimately, though, only a moral society, with the family its key element, will make the citizens and the government less violent.
government
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:5
We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.
government
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 61:7
Recently there was a bipartisan study put out and chaired by Ed Meese, and he is not considered a radical libertarian. He was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Post as to what we here in the Congress are doing with nationalizing our police force. The editorial states: “The basic contention of the report, which was produced by a bipartisan group headed by former Attorney General Edward Meese, is that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a national government.”
government
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:5
But in this report that came out in April to summarize last year, our government lists as a violation of human rights that we are holding them accountable for that we want to use against them so that we do not trade with them is the fact that two individuals last year were arrested because they desecrated the Communist Chinese flag.
government
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:6
I think that is pretty important. We should think about that. First, the Chinese Government makes it illegal to desecrate a flag in Hong Kong, and then they arrest somebody and they convict them, and they want to hold it against them and say we do not want to give them Most Favored Nation status because they are violating somebody’s human rights.
government
Opposing Flag Burning Amendment
23 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 66:5
We have written a lot of laws since then. But every time we write a law to enforce a law, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government to arrest him and it is done with a gun. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun. So if you are not a patriot, you are assumed not to be a patriot and you are doing this, we will send somebody to arrest them.
government
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.
government
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
government
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 68:6
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Privacy Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
government
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 1218.
government
Improving Privacy
1 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 71:4
Now, if one wants to really find something where one invades the privacy of the individual citizen, it is this notion that the Federal Government would dictate a profiling of every bank customer in this country; and then, if that customer varied its financial activities at any time, it could be reported to the various agencies of the Federal Government. Now, that is privacy. That is what we have to stop. I ask for support for my amendment.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:3
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress and requires Congress to define government policy and select the means by which that policy is to be implemented. Congress, in allowing religious free exercise to be infringed using the least restrictive means whenever government pleads a compelling interest without defining either what constitutes least restrictive or compelling interest delegates, to the courts legislative powers to make these policy choices constitutionally reserved to the elected body.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:5
Admittedly, instances of State government infringement of religious exercise can be found in various forms and in various States, most of which, however, occur in government-operated schools, prisons and so-called government enterprises and as a consequence of Federal Government programs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that religious liberty will be somehow better protected by enacting national terms of infringement, a national infringement standard which is ill-defined by a Federal legislature and further defined by Federal courts, both of which are remote from those whose rights are likely to be infringed.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:6
If one admires the Federal government’s handling of the abortion question, one will have to wait with even greater anticipation to witness the Federal government’s handiwork with respect to religious liberty.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:7
To the extent governments continue to expand the breadth and depth of their reach into those functions formally assumed by private entities, governments will continue to be caught in a hopeless paradox where intolerance of religious exercise in government facilities is argued to constitute establishment and, similarly, restrictions of religious exercise constitute infringement.
government
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 74:8
Mr. Speaker, our Nation does not need an unconstitutional Federal standard of religious freedom. We need instead for government, including the courts, to respect its existing constitutional limitations so we can have true religious liberty.
government
Mail Receiving Agencies
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 75:3
First, let me talk about the Post Office. The Post Office is a true monopoly. In the free market, there are no true monopolies. Only government can allow a true monopoly.
government
Mail Receiving Agencies
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 75:10
We as a Congress have the ability, and the authority, to undo regulations. For too long, we have allowed our regulatory bodies to write law, and we do nothing about it. Since 1994, we have had this authority, but we never use it. This is a perfect example of a time that we ought to come in and protect the people, try to neutralize this government monopoly and help these people who deserve this type of protection and privacy.
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:2
So what exactly is “free trade” and how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will become more favorable by “default.”
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:3
Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of firm-or-industry-benefitting protectionism or another, my “trade free of intervention” definition of free trade is currently quite out of favor with beltway-dominant pundits. Such wrongheaded thinking is not limited to government. In academia, a widely-used undergraduate economics text, authorized by David C. Colander, describes a “free trade association” as a “group of countries that allows free trade among its members and puts up common barriers against all other countries’ goods” — thus here we have free trade associations putting up barriers. (An economic textbook only Orwell could love.)
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:6
The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a pro-free trade position is particularly indicative, however, of what now constitutes free trade in the alleged minds of the beltway elite. When government forces through taxation, citizens to forego consumption of their own choosing (in other words forego voluntary exchanges) so that government can send money to foreign entities (i.e. trade promotion), this in the mind of Washington insiders constitutes “free trade.” In other words, when demand curves facing the corporate elite are less than those desired, government’s help is then enlisted to shift the demand curve by forcing taxpayers to send money to various government and private entities whose spending patterns more favorably reflect those desired by those “engineering” such “free trade” policies in Washington. Much like tax cuts being a “cost to government” and “free trade associations” whose purpose it is to erect barriers, free trade has become government-coerced, taxpayer-financed foreign aid designed to result in specific private spending and private gains.
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:7
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE’s Congressional scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The fast-track procedure bill sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, kinder “welfarist” form of protectionism), and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today’s legislative mishap, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from those corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable international trade agreements.
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:10
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fan-fare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. The mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers — be they domestic or foreign.
government
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:2
H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The most important feature of the bill is the provision forbidding the use of federal funds for mandatory national teacher testing or teacher certification. National teacher testing or national teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, all those who oppose a national curriculum should oppose national teacher testing. I commend Chairman GOODLING and Chairman MCKEON for their continued commitment to fighting a national curriculum.
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:3
Furthermore, this bill provides increased ability for state and local governments to determine how best to use federal funds. However, no one should confuse this with true federalism or even a repudiation of the modern view of state and local governments as administrative agencies of the Federal Government. After all, the very existence of a federal program designed to “help” states train teachers limits a state’s ability to set education priorities since every dollar taken in federal taxes to fund federal teacher training programs is a dollar a state cannot use to purchase new textbooks or computers for students. This bill also dictates how much money the states may keep versus how much must be sent to the local level and limits the state government’s use of the funds to activities approved by Congress.
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:4
In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of “proven, innovative strategies” to improve professional development — I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their “innovative strategy” did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide by its constitutional limits.
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:5
Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to the students — not by state or federal bureaucrats. Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local education officials.
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:7
In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!”
government
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:8
In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, decentralized education systems are much more effective then centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and students.
government
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:7
Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another.
government
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:9
Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments.
government
OPIC
2 August 1999 1999 Ron Paul 83:6
How many other agencies of government get interest like this? This is almost a government unto itself, the fact that it has that much financing without even a direct appropriation because it is paid out of the interest budget.
government
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.
government
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:3
This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money.
government
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 92:14
There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one’s belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, political corruption is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by ‘investing’ in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:2
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government — legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
government
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.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:6
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:8
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending — a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:12
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral “political action committees” that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral “political action committees” that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:14
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
government
Campaign Finance Reform
14 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 97:15
True reform is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.
government
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
27 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 98:3
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, “Is America Number One!” In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:
government
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
27 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 98:4
Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you’re taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list — Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn’t everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.
government
Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century
27 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 98:5
In the show, Peter Jennings said that “Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.” Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, “The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let’s go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.”
government
East Timor
28 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 99:2
In the 1970’s, we were very supportive of the Indonesian Government in their takeover of East Timor after it became independent from Portugal. So once again, here we are intervening.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:13
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:14
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) federal murder and assault statutes apply, the federal government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:16
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:17
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:19
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:20
Occasionally the argument is put forth that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of a police power.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:21
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:22
When small governments become too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:3
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:5
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:6
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:8
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us to this managed-care monster. If we pursued a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the Government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:12
A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:13
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:14
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:15
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:20
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
government
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!
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:24
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
government
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:25
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:3
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMOs’ role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion among organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have “universal” food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs and yet many of the “poor” do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:5
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed care monster. If we pursue the course of more government management — in an effort to balance things — we’re destined to make the problem much worse. If government mismanagement, in an area that the government should not be managing at all, is the problem, another level of bureaucracy — no matter how well intended — cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government provided medical care and it’s inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:7
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third-parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population — just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels become much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:8
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:9
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a well-known cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:10
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:11
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government-created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:16
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.
government
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!
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:20
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.
government
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:21
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.
government
Stop Federal Funding for Schools
20 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 107:3
In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working.
government
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 108:7
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to “hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.” This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce “report cards” listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child’s education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.
government
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT “A’s” fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT “A’s” states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting “civil rights.” Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT “A’s” will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
government
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:2
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.
government
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
government
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:10
Since the STRAIGHT “A’s” bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government’s usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America’s parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.
government
Introduction Of Public Safety Tax Cut Act
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 110:2
First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
government
Introduction Of Public Safety Tax Cut Act
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 110:3
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.
government
Introduction Of Public Safety Tax Cut Act
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 110:6
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:8
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:10
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:13
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:16
All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be construed as being “correct”.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 111:18
Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that the program carried out with the award will follow the government guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional schools, i.e. the medical schools’ residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be withheld.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:10
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of “assisted” suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States — most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting “assisted suicide” — and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:11
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
government
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
government
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 113:5
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average — and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
government
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 113:6
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
government
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 113:7
This increased indication of the government’s eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn’t even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
government
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 113:8
Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers’ loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by “opting out” and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.
government
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 113:9
The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.
government
Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws
8 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 114:4
It is an economic truism that the only true monopoly is government protected, such as the Post Office or a public utility. There is nothing more annoying than a government bureaucrat or Federal judge gleefully condemning a productive enterprising capitalist for doing a good job. These little men filled with envy are capable of producing nothing and are motivated by their own inadequacies and desires to wield authority against men of talent.
government
Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws
8 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 114:10
Many big companies have achieved success with government subsidies, contracts, and special interest legislation. This type of bigness must be distinguished from bigness achieved in a free market by providing consumer satisfaction.
government
Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws
8 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 114:15
The Bill Gateses of the world can only invest their money in job-creating projects or donate it to help the needy. The entrepreneurial giants are not a threat to stability or prosperity. Government bureaucrats and Federal judges are. But strict enforcement of all the ill-inspired antitrust laws does not serve the consumer, nor the cause of liberty.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 115:6
Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society.
government
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 115:10
Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.
government
Allow Hi-Tech Supervision of Home Health Agency Branch Offices
18 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075, which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System (PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health agencies be allowed the flexibility to establish and serve large service areas by utilizing cost efficient branch offices.
government
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 1:7
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old “command-and control” model with one that respects the constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:3
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:4
The term “republic” had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:5
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:6
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several States, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the State and the people.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:8
The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:9
The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man’s action, the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not simply to be a cog in a wheel or a single cell of an organism or a branch of a tree but an individual with free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life’s dreams and assume one’s responsibilities.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:10
If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man’s highest and noblest goals, so should man’s mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:11
Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:12
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator. And if government could not grant rights to individuals, it certainly should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:15
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive, nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements. It was a great plan. We should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this Nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:19
We still can freely move about from town to town, State to State, and job to job. Free education is available to everyone, even for those who do not want it or care about it. But the capable and the incapable are offered a government education. We can attend the church of our choice, start a newspaper, use the Internet and meet in private when we choose. Food is plentiful throughout the country and oftentimes even wasted. Medical technology has dramatically advanced and increased life expectancy for both men and women.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:20
Government statistics are continuously reaffirming our great prosperity with evidence of high and rising wages, no inflation, and high consumer confidence and spending. The U.S. Government still enjoys good credit and a strong currency in relationship to most other currencies of the world. We have no trouble financing our public nor private debt. Housing markets are booming and interest rates remain reasonable by modern day standards. Unemployment is low.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:22
The nature of a republic and the current status of our own are of little concern to the American people in general. Yet there is a small minority ignored by political, academic, and media personnel who do spend time thinking about the importance of what the proper role for government should be. The comparison of today’s government to the one established by our Constitution is the subject of deep discussion for those who concern themselves with the future and look beyond the fall election.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:24
Unbelievable changes have occurred in the 20th century. We went from the horse and buggy age to the space age. Computer technology and the Internet have dramatically changed the way we live. All kinds of information and opinions on any subject are now available by clicking a few buttons. Technology offers an opportunity for everyone who seeks to the truth to find it, yet at the same time it enhances the ability of government to monitor our every physical, communicative, and financial move.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:25
Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt. For the true believers in big government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause. We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, “Know Your Customer” regulations on banking activity, a national security agent all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the many ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:26
The 20th century has truly been a century of unbelievable technological advancement. We should be cognizant of what this technology has done to the size and nature of our own Government. It could easily be argued that, with greater technological advances, the need for government ought to decline and private alternatives be enhanced. But there is not much evidence for that argument.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:27
In 1902, the cost of Government activities at all levels came to 7.7 percent of GDP. Today it is more than 50 percent.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:28
Government officials oversee everything we do, from regulating the amount of water in our commodes to placing airbags in our cars, safety locks on our guns, and using our own land. Almost every daily activity we engage in is monitored or regulated by some Government agency. If one attempts to just avoid Government harassment, one finds himself in deep trouble with the law.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:30
The idea that we are responsible for our own actions has been seriously undermined. And it would be grossly misleading to argue that the huge growth in the size of government has been helpful and necessary in raising the standard of living of so many Americans.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:31
Since government cannot create anything, it can only resort to using force to redistribute the goods that energetic citizens produce. The old-fashioned term for this is “theft.”
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:32
It is clear that our great prosperity has come in spite of the obstacles that big government places in our way and not because of it. And besides, our current prosperity may well not be as permanent as many believe.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:34
Taxes: Taxes are certainly higher. A federal income tax of 35 to 40 percent is something many middle-class Americans must pay, while, on average, they work for the Government more than half the year. In passing on our estates from one generation to the next, our partner, the U.S. Government, decides on its share before the next generation can take over.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:36
Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the Government owns the fruits of our labor as well as our savings and we are permitted by the politicians’ generosity to keep a certain percentage.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:37
Every tax cut proposal in Washington now is considered a cost to Government, not the return of something rightfully belonging to a productive citizen. This principle is true whether it is a 1 percent or 70 percent income tax. Concern for this principle has been rarely expressed in a serious manner over the past 50 years. The withholding process has permitted many to believe that a tax rebate at the end of the year comes as a gift from Government.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:38
Because of this, the real cost of Government to the taxpayer is obscured. The income tax has grown to such an extent and the Government is so dependent on it that any talk of eliminating the income tax is just that, talk. A casual acceptance of the principle behind high taxation with an income tax and an inheritance tax is incompatible with the principle belief in a true republic. It is impossible to maintain a high tax system without the sacrifice of liberty and an undermining of property ownership. If kept in place, such a system will undermine prosperity regardless of how well off we may presently be.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:43
The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Federal Government is now involved in providing healthcare, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special interest group. Welfare is now a part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a right, something one is entitled to. Calling it an entitlement makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:52
The Constitution granted authority to the Federal Government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefits of the general welfare of all the people.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:55
The goal of strictly limiting the power of our national Government as was intended by the Constitution is impossible to achieve as long as it is acceptable for Congress to redistribute wealth in an egalitarian welfare state.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:57
Today there is no serious effort to challenge welfare as a way of life, and its uncontrolled growth in the next economic downturn is to be expected. Too many citizens now believe they are entitled to the monetary assistance from the Government anytime they need it and they expect it. Even in times of plenty, the direction has been to continue expanding education, welfare, and retirement benefits.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:58
No one asked where the Government gets the money to finance the welfare state. Is it morally right to do so? Is it authorized in the Constitution? Does it help anyone in the long run? Who suffers from the policy? Until these questions are seriously asked and correctly answered, we cannot expect the march toward a pervasive welfare state to stop and we can expect our liberties to be continuously compromised.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:62
Since this ruling, we have rarely heard the true explanation of the General Welfare clause as being a restriction of government power, not a grant of unlimited power.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:65
No wonder lobbyists are willing to spend $125 million per month influencing Congress; it is a good investment. No amount of campaign finance reform or regulation of lobbyists can deal with this problem. The problem lies in the now accepted role for our Government. Government has too much control over people and the market, making the temptation and incentive to influence government irresistible and, to a degree, necessary.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:66
Curtailing how people spend their own money or their right to petition their government will do nothing to this influence peddling. Treating the symptoms and not the disease only further undermines the principles of freedom and property ownership.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:67
Any serious reforms or effort to break away from the welfare state must be directed as much at corporate welfare as routine welfare. Since there is no serious effort to reject welfare on principle, the real conflict over how to divide what Government plunders will continue.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:70
The role of the U.S. Government in public education has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Most of the major changes have occurred in the second half of this century. In the 19th century, the closest the Federal Government got to public education was the land grant college program. In the last 40 years, the Federal Government has essentially taken charge of the entire system. It is involved in education at every level through loans, grants, court directives, regulations and curriculum manipulation. In 1900, it was of no concern to the Federal Government how local schools were run at any level.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:72
The one good result coming from our failed educational system has been the limited, but important, revival of the notion that parents are responsible for their children’s education, not the state. We have seen literally millions of children taken from the public school system and taught at home or in private institutions in spite of the additional expense. This has helped many students and has also served to pressure the government schools into doing a better job. And the statistics show that middle-income and low-income families are the most eager to seek an alternative to the public school system.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:76
For 20 years at least, some of our presidential candidates advocated the abolishing of the Department of Education and for the Federal Government to get completely out of public education. This year, we will hear no more of that. The President got more money for education than he asked for and it is considered not only bad manners but also political suicide to argue the case for stopping all Federal Government education programs.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:77
Talk of returning some control of Federal programs to the States is not the same as keeping the Federal Government out of education as directed by the Constitution. Of the 20 congressionally authorized functions granted by the Constitution, education is not one of them. That should be enough of a reason not to be involved. There is no evidence of any benefit and statistics show that great harm has resulted. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, yet we continue the inexorable march toward total domination of our educational system by Washington bureaucrats and politicians. It makes no sense. It is argued that if the Federal funding for education did not continue, education would suffer even more. Yet we see poor and middle-class families educating their children at home or at private school at a fraction of the cost of a government school education, with results fantastically better, and all done in the absence of violence and drugs.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:79
The practice of medicine is now a government managed care system and very few Americans are happy with it. Not only is there little effort to extricate the Federal Government from the medical care business but the process of expanding the government’s role continues unabated. At the turn of the 19th century, it was not even considered a possibility that medical care was the responsibility of the Federal Government. Since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the 1960s, the role of the Federal Government in delivering medical care has grown exponentially. Today the Federal Government pays more than 60 percent of all the medical bills and regulates all of it. The demands continue for more free care at the same time complaints about the shortcomings of managed care multiply. Yet it is natural to assume that government planning and financing will sacrifice quality care. It is now accepted that people who need care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:80
There is no indication that the trend toward government medicine will be reversed. Our problems are related to the direct takeover of medical care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But it has also been the interference in the free market through ERISA mandates related to HMOs and other managed care organizations, as well as our tax code, that have undermined the private insurance aspect of paying for medical care. True medical insurance is not available. The government dictates all the terms.
government
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.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:82
Making generous medical savings accounts available is about the only program talked about today that offers an alternative to government mismanaged care. If something of this sort is not soon implemented, we can expect more pervasive government involvement in the practice of medicine. With a continual deterioration of its quality, the private practice of medicine will soon be gone.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:83
Government housing programs are no more successful than the Federal Government’s medical and education programs. In the early part of this century, government housing was virtually unheard of. Now the HUD budget commands over $30 billion each year and increases every year. Finances of mortgages through the Federal Home Loan Bank, the largest Federal Government borrower, is the key financial institution pumping in hundreds of billions of dollars of credit into the housing market, making things worse. The Federal Reserve has now started to use home mortgage securities for monetizing debt. Public housing has a reputation for being a refuge for drugs, crimes and filth, with the projects being torn down as routinely as they are built. There is every indication that this entitlement will continue to expand in size regardless of its failures. Token local control over these expenditures will do nothing to solve the problem.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:84
Recently, the Secretary of HUD, using public funds to sue gun manufacturers, claimed this is necessary to solve the problems of crime which government housing perpetuates. If a government agency, which was never meant to exist in the first place under the Constitution, can expand their role into the legislative and legal matters without the consent of the Congress, we indeed have a serious problem on our hands. The programs are bad enough in themselves but the abuse of the rule of law and ignoring the separation of powers makes these expanding programs that much more dangerous to our entire political system and is a direct attack on personal liberty. If one cares about providing the maximum best housing for the maximum number of people, one must consider a free market approach in association with a sound, nondepreciating currency. We have been operating a public housing program directly opposite to this and along with steady inflation and government promotion of housing since the 1960s, the housing market has been grossly distorted. We can soon expect a major downward correction in the housing industry prompted by rising interest rates.
government
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.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:97
Ironically, the government and politicians are held in very low esteem, yet the significant trust in them to maintain the value of the currency is not questioned. But it should be.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:98
The reasons for rejecting gold and promoting paper are not mysterious, since quite a few special interests benefit. Deficit financing is much more difficult when there is no Central Bank available to monetize government debt. This gives license to politicians to spend lavishly on the projects that are most likely to get them reelected. War is more difficult to pursue if government has to borrow or tax the people for its financing. The Federal Reserve’s ability to create credit out of thin air to pay the bills run up by Congress establishes a symbiosis that is easy for the politician to love.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:112
A paper money system is dangerous economically and not constitutionally authorized. It is also immoral for government to counterfeit money, which dilutes the value of the currency and steals values from those who hold the currency and those who do not necessary benefit from its early circulation.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:113
Not everyone benefits from the largesse of government spending programs or systematic debasement of the currency. The middle class, those not on welfare and not in the military industrial complex suffer the most from rising prices and job losses in the correction phase of the business cycle.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:115
Police state. A police state is incompatible with liberty. One hundred years ago the Federal Government was responsible for enforcing very few laws. This has dramatically changed. There are now over 3,000 Federal laws and 10,000 regulations, employing hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats diligently enforcing them, with over 80,000 of the bureaucrats carrying guns.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:117
A lot of political and police power has shifted from the state and local communities to the Federal Government over the past 100 years. If a constitutional republic is desired and individual liberty is cherished, this concentration of power cannot be tolerated.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:119
The promoters of the bureaucratic legislation claim to have good intentions, but they fail to acknowledge the cost, inefficiency or the undermining of individual rights. Worker safety, environmental concerns, drug usage, gun control, welfarism, banking regulations, government insurance, health insurance, insurance against economic and natural disaster, and the regulation of fish and wildlife. Are just a few of the issues that prompts the unlimited use of Federal regulatory and legislative power to deal with perceived problems.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:120
But, inevitably, for every attempt to solve one problem, government creates two new ones. National politicians are not likely to volunteer a market or local government solution to a problem, or they will find out how unnecessary they really are.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:125
The two most notorious examples of federal abuse of police powers were seen at Ruby Ridge and Waco, where non-aggressive citizens were needlessly provoked and killed by government agents. At Waco, even Army tanks were used to deal with a situation that the local sheriff could have easily handled.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:127
If the steady growth of the Federal police power continues, the American republic cannot survive. The Congresses of the 20th Century have steadily undermined the principle that the government closest to home must deal with law and order, and not the Federal Government.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:128
The Federal courts also have significantly contributed to this trend. Hopefully in the new century our support for a national police state will be diminished. We have in this past century not only seen the undermining of the Federalism that the Constitution desperately tried to preserve, but the principles of separation of powers among the three branches of government has been severely compromised as well.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:130
Throughout the 20th Century, with Congress’ obsession for writing laws for everything, the Federal courts were quite willing to support the idea of a huge interventionist Federal Government. The fact that the police officers in the Rodney King case were tried twice for the same crime, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, was astoundingly condoned by the courts, rather than condemned. It is not an encouraging sign that the concept of equal protection under the law will prevail.
government
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
government
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:5
Moreover, this bill empowers Health and Human Services to engage in a national propaganda campaign on the dangers of GHB, creates a special unit with the Drug Enforcement Agency to assess abuse and trafficking in GHB, and authorizes the Justice Department to issue taxpayer-funded grants for the development of police officer field-test equipment. Aside from being further abuses of enumerated powers doctrine, the substantive questions raised by this legislation make these usurpations of state government authority even more reprehensible.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:7
The idea of separate but equal branches of government has been forgotten and the Congress bears much of the responsibility for this trend. Executive powers in the past 100 years have grown steadily with the creation of agencies that write and enforce their own regulations and with Congress allowing the President to use executive orders without restraint.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:9
The CIA is so secretive that even those Congressmen privy to its operation have little knowledge of what this secret government actually does around the world.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:10
We know, of course, it has been involved in the past 50 years in assassinations and government overthrows on frequent occasions. The Federal Reserve operation, which works hand in hand with the administration, is not subject to congressional oversight. The Fed manipulates currency exchange rates, controls short-term interest rates, and fixes the gold price, all behind closed doors.
government
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.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:12
The people should be able to closely monitor the Government, but as our government grows in size and scope, it, the Government, seeks to monitor our every move. Attacks on our privacy are an incessant and always justified by citing so-called legitimate needs of the State, efficiency and law enforcement.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:16
The Government knew very little about each individual American citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone’s activities, with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by it. We can expect it to get worse.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:18
As far as I am concerned, we could all do with a lot less Government protection and security. The offer of Government benevolence is the worst reason to sacrifice liberty, but we have seen a lot of that during the 20th century.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:24
The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life, not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers’ funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st century.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:25
A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:26
If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed and the elderly, a direction, unfortunately, in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia, that is, mercy killing, for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:31
Much has changed over the past 100 years, where technology has improved our living standards. We find that our Government has significantly changed from one of limited scope to that of pervasive intervention.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:32
One hundred years ago it was generally conceded that one extremely important function of government was to enforce contracts made voluntarily in the marketplace. Today, government notoriously interferes with almost every voluntary economic transaction. Consumerism, labor laws, wage standards, hiring and firing regulations, political political correctness, affirmative action, the Americans with Disability Act, the Tax Code, and others place a burden on the two parties struggling to transact business.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:33
The EPA, OSHA and governmentgenerated litigation also interferes with voluntary contracts. At times, it seems a miracle that our society adapts and continues to perform reasonably well in spite of the many bureaucratic dictates.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:34
As the 20th century comes to a close, we see a dramatic change from a government that once served an important function by emphasizing the value of voluntary contracts to one that excessively interferes with them. Although the interference is greater in economic associations than in social, the principle is the same. Already we see the political correctness movement interfering with social and religious associations. Data banks are set up to keep records on everyone, especially groups with strong religious views and anybody to be so bold as to call himself a patriot. The notion that there is a difference between murder and murder driven by hate has established the principles of a thought crime, a dangerous trend indeed.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:35
When the business cycle turns down, all the regulations and laws that interfere with economic and personal transactions will not be as well tolerated, and then the true cost will become apparent. It is under the conditions of a weak economy that such government interference generates a reaction to the anger over the rules that have been suppressed.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:37
The bureaucratic mindset is convinced that without the politicians’ effort, no one would be protected from anything, rejecting the idea of a free market economy out of ignorance or arrogance. This change in the 20th century has significantly contributed to the dependency of our poor on Government handouts, the recipients being convinced that they are entitled to help and that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. A serious loss of self-esteem and unhappiness results, even if the system in the short run seems to help them get by.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:38
There were no Federal laws at the end of the 19th century dealing with drugs or guns. Gun violence was rare and abuse of addictive substances was only a minor problem. Now, after 100 years of progressive Government intervention in dealing with guns and drugs, with thousands of laws and regulations, we have more gun violence and a huge drug problem.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:40
Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal Government’s effort to stop drug usage.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:41
In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:42
Our government pursued alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and confiscation of gold in the 1930s, so it is logical to conclude that our government is quite capable of confiscating all privatelyowned firearms. That has not yet occurred; but as we move into the next century, many in Washington advocate just that and would do it if they did not think the American people would revolt, just as they did against alcohol prohibition.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:47
When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear. The monster drug problem we have created is compounded by moves to tax citizens so government can hand out free needles to drug addicts who are breaking the law in hopes that there will be less spread of hepatitis and AIDS in order to reduce government health care costs.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:49
Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health consequences. Then we spend taxpayers’ money warning the people of its dangers, without stopping the subsidies.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:50
Government then pays for the care of those who choose to smoke, despite the known dangers and warnings. But it does not stop there. The trial lawyers’ lobby saw to it that the local government entities could sue tobacco companies for reimbursement of the excess costs that they were bearing in taking care of smoking-related illnesses, and the only way this could be paid for was to place a tax on those people who did not smoke.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:51
How could such silliness go on for so long? For one reason. We as a nation have forgotten the basic precept of a free society, that all citizens must be responsible for their own acts. If one smokes and gets sick, that is the problem of the one making the decision to smoke or take any other risk for that matter, not the innocent taxpayers who have already been forced to pay for the tobacco subsidies and government health warning ads.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:54
It is said that an interventionist economy is needed to make society fair to everyone. We need no more government fairness campaigns. Egalitarianism never works and inevitably penalizes the innocent. Government in a free society is supposed to protect the innocent, encourage self-reliance and impose equal justice while allowing everyone to benefit from their own effort and suffer the consequences of their own acts. A free and independent people need no authoritarian central government dictating eating, drinking, gambling, sexual, or smoking habits.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:55
When the rules are required, they should come from the government closest to home as it once did prior to America’s ill-fated 20th Century experiment with alcohol prohibition. Let us hope we show more common sense in the 21st Century in these matters than we did in the 20th.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:58
The attitudes surrounding this entire issue needs to change. We should never turn over the job of dealing with bad habits to our Federal Government. That is a recipe for disaster.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:63
There is no way to know if this problem is this bad in the general population, but these statistics indicate our young people do not trust our politicians or media. Trust has been replaced with a satisfaction in the materialism that speculative stock markets, borrowing money, and a spendthrift government can generate.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:64
What happens to our society if the material abundance which we enjoy is ephemeral and human trust is lost? Social disorder will surely result and there will be a clamor for a more authoritarian government. This scenario may indeed threaten the stability of our social order and significantly undermine all our constitutional protections, but there is no law or ethics committee that will solve this problem of diminishing trust and honesty. That is a problem of the heart, mind and character to be dealt with by each individual citizen.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:65
The importance of the family unit today has been greatly diminished compared to the close of the 19th Century. Now, fewer people get married, more divorces occur and the number of children born out of wedlock continues to rise. Tax penalties are placed on married couples. Illegitimacy and single parenthood are rewarded by government subsidies, and we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and -wife couples to qualify for welfare handouts.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:67
We now hear of individuals being sent to psychiatrists when personal and social views are crude or out of the ordinary. It was commonplace in the Soviet system to incarcerate political dissenters in so-called mental institutions. Those who received a Soviet government designation of socially undesirable elements were stripped of their rights. Will this be the way we treat political dissent in the future?
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:71
We find ourselves at the close of this century realizing all our standards have been undermined. A monetary standard for our money is gone. The dollar is whatever the government tells us it is. There is no definition and no promise to pay anything for the notes issued ad infinitum by the government. Standards for education are continually lowered, deemphasizing excellence. Relative ethics are promoted and moral absolutes are ridiculed. The influence of religion on our standards is frowned upon and replaced by secular humanistic standards. The work ethic has been replaced by a welfare ethic based on need, not effort. Strict standards required for an elite military force are gone and our lack of readiness reflects this.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:72
Standards of behavior of our professional athletes seem to reflect the rules followed in the ring by the professional wrestlers where anything goes. Managed medical care driven by government decrees has reduced its quality and virtually ruined the doctor-patient relationship.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:74
With the acceptance of abortion, our standards for life have become totally arbitrary as they have become for liberty. Endorsing the arbitrary use of force by our government morally justifies the direct use of force by disgruntled groups not satisfied with the slower government process. The standards for honesty and truth have certainly deteriorated during the past 100 years.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:80
Laws clearly cannot alter moral behavior, and if it is attempted, it creates bigger problems. Only individuals with moral convictions can make society moral. But the law does reflect the general consensus of the people regarding force and aggression, which is a moral issue. Government can be directed to restrain and punish violent aggressive citizens, or it can use aggressive force to rule the people, redistribute wealth, and make citizens follow certain moral standards, and force them to practice certain personal habits.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:81
Once government is permitted to do the latter, even in a limited sense, the guiding principle of an authoritarian government is established, and its power and influence over the people will steadily grow, at the expense of personal liberty. No matter how wellintentioned, the authoritarian government always abuses its powers. In its effort to achieve an egalitarian society, the principle of inequality that freedom recognizes and protects is lost.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:82
Government, then, instead of being an obstruction to violence, becomes the biggest perpetrator. This invites all the special interests to manipulate the monopoly and evil use of government power. Twenty thousand lobbyists currently swarm Washington seeking special advantage. That is where we find ourselves today.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:83
Although government cannot and should not try to make people better in the personal, moral sense, proper law should have a moral, nonaggressive basis to it: no lying, cheating, stealing, killing, injuring, or threatening. Government then would be limited to protecting contracts, people, and property, while guaranteeing all personal nonviolent behavior, even the controversial.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:84
Although there are degrees in various authoritarian societies as to how much power a government may wield, once government is given the authority to wield power, it does so in an ever-increasing manner. The pressure to use government authority to run the economy in our lives depends on several factors. These include a basic understanding of personal liberty, respect for a constitutional republic, economic myths, ignorance, and misplaced good intentions.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:85
In every society there are always those waiting in the wings for an opportunity to show how brilliant they are as they lust for power, convinced that they know what is best for everyone. But the defenders of liberty know that what is best for everyone is to be left alone, with a government limited to stopping aggressive behavior.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:87
It is argued that the United States and now the world have learned a third way, something between extreme socialism and mean-spirited capitalism. But this is a dream. The so-called friendly third way endorses 100 percent the principle that government authority can be used to direct our lives and the economy. Once this is accepted, the principle that man alone is responsible for his salvation and his life on Earth, which serves as the foundation for free market capitalism, is rejected.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:88
The third way of friendly welfarism or soft fascism, where government and businesses are seen as partners, undermines and sets the stage for authoritarian socialism. Personal liberty cannot be preserved if we remain on the course at which we find ourselves at the close of the 20th century.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:94
Executive orders, agency regulations, Federal court rulings, unratified international agreements, direct government, economy, and foreign policy. Congress has truly been reduced in status and importance over the past 100 years. When the people’s voices are heard, it is done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide how far they can go without stirring up the people.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:96
We may not have a king telling us which trees we can cut down today, but we do have a government bureaucracy and a pervasive threat of litigation by radical environmentalists who keep us from cutting our own trees, digging a drainage ditch, or filling a puddle, all at the expense of private property ownership.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:98
We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual liberty is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:99
Freedom too often is rejected, especially in the midst of plenty, when there is a belief that government largesse will last forever. This is true because it is tough to accept personal responsibility, practice the work ethic, and follow the rules of peaceful coexistence with our fellow man.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:101
I have good friends who are in basic agreement with my analysis of the current state of the American republic, but argue it is a waste of time and effort to try and change the direction in which we are going. No one will listen, they argue. Besides, the development of a strong, centralized, authoritarian government is too far along to reverse the trends of the 20th century. Why waste time in Congress when so few people care about liberty, they ask? The masses, they point out, are interested only in being taken care of, and the elite want to keep receiving the special benefits allotted to them through special interest legislation.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:105
But it must be remembered that no matter how it is portrayed, when big government systematically and steadily undermines individual rights and economic liberty, it is still a powerful but negative idea and it will not fade away easily.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:107
The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being overtaxed, and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their goals and waste huge sums of money. A smoldering resentment against the unfairness of government and efforts to force equality on us can inspire violence, but instead, it should be used to encourage an honest system of equal justice based on individual, not collective, rights.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:108
Sentiment is moving in the direction of challenging the status quo of the welfare and international warfare state. The Internet has given hope to millions who have felt their voices were not being heard, and this influence is just beginning. The three major networks and conventional government propaganda no longer control the information now available to everyone with a computer.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:109
The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would guarantee privacy on the Internet.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:110
These battles have just begun. If the civil libertarians and free market proponents do not win this fight to keep the Internet free and private, the tools for undermining authoritarian government will be greatly reduced. Victory for liberty will probably elude us for decades.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:111
The excuse they will give for controlling the Internet will be to stop pornography, catch drug dealers, monitor child molesters, and do many other socalled good things. We should not be deceived. We have faced tough odds, but to avoid battle or believe there is a place to escape to, someplace else in the world, would concede victory to those who endorse authoritarian government.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:114
There are precise goals Congress should work for, even under today’s difficult circumstances. It must preserve in the best manner possible voluntary options to failed government programs.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:117
2. In order to maintain economic protection against Government debasement of the currency, gold ownership must be preserved, something taken away from the American people during the Depression.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:118
3. Adequate retirement protection by the Government is limited, if not ultimately impossible. We must allow every citizen the opportunity to control all of his or her retirement funds.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:119
4. Government education has clearly failed. We must guarantee the right of families to home school or send their kids to private schools and help them with tax credits.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:120
5. Government snoops must be stopped. We must work to protect all privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the national ID card, and stop the development of all Government data banks.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:124
9. Competition in all elections should be guaranteed, and the monopoly powers gained by the two major parties through unfair signature requirements, high fees, and campaign donation controls should be removed. Competitive parties should be allowed in all government- sponsored debate.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:129
The key element for the Republic’s survival for Jefferson was the character of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for others, and their liberty and their property. It is the character of the people that determines the proper role for government in a free society.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:132
Some who are every bit as concerned as I am about our future and the pervasive corrupt influence in our Government in every aspect of our lives offer other solutions. Some say to solve the problem all we have to do is write more detailed laws dealing with campaign finance reform, ignoring how this might undermine the principles of liberty. Similarly, others argue that what is needed is merely to place tighter restrictions on the lobbyists in order to minimize their influence. But they fail to realize this undermines our constitutional right to petition our Government for redress of grievances.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:135
And there are others who believe that government force is legitimate in promoting what they call “fair redistribution.” The proponents of this course have failed to read history and instead adhere to economic myths. They ignore the evidence that these efforts to help their fellow man will inevitably fail. Instead, it will do the opposite and lead to the impoverishment of many.
government
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:137
None of these alternatives will work. Character and good manners are not a government problem. They reflect individual attitudes that can only be changed by individuals themselves. Freedom allows virtue and excellence to blossom. When government takes on the role of promoting virtue, illegitimate government force is used and tyrants quickly appear on the scene to do the job. Virtue and excellence become illusive, and we find instead that the government officials become corrupt and freedom is lost, the very ingredient required for promoting virtue, harmony, and the brotherhood of man.
government
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 6:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
government
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 6:2
* The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the Federal Government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits and limits senior citizens’ ability to earn additional income by reducing Social Security benefits if a senior exceeds the ‘earnings limitation.’ Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
government
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 6:5
* The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 7:2
* Mr. Evers’ article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ‘new math’ did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments.
government
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think of this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money, and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them.
government
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 10:2
It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in this Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
government
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 10:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!
government
SENIOR CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 11:1
# Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social Security ‘earnings limitations.’ During a time when an increasing number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.
government
SENIOR CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 11:2
When the government takes money every month from people’s paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to work.
government
SENIOR CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 11:3
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.
government
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:5
Let me assure Members that this Nation does not need yet another bureaucratic hurdle to tax reduction. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution reserves to Congress alone the authority for regulating foreign commerce. According to Article II, section 2, it reserves to the Senate the sole power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United States government and other governments.
government
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:8
Let us face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The World Trade Organization is a quasi-governmental agency, and hence, it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let us call a spade a spade: the World Trade Organization is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group; preferred, that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.
government
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:13
A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. Treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. Thus, the tariff would be low.
government
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.
government
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:2
* Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ‘wedge’ between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the ‘minimum wage.’ This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65 — why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?
government
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:3
* Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!
government
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:5
* Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing its misguided and unscientific ‘ergonomics’ regulation. Congress should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals the Post Office’s CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying with postal regulations!
government
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 16:2
* Unfortunately, Congress and the federal bureaucracy continue to strip authority away from parents, teachers and local school boards. While Congress promises the American people that expansions of federal control over local schools will create an educational utopia, the fact is that the federal education bureaucracy has only increased the difficulties of educating the next generation and diverted resources away from the classroom. For example, while the federal government provides less than 10% of education funding, many school districts find that more than 50% of their paperwork is generated by federal mandates and the hoops local school officials must jump through in order to get Washington to return a ridiculously small portion of taxpayer money to local public schools.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:1
* Mr. Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government’s constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial “enumerated powers doctrine” transgression.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:2
* In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March 2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract. More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts, of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:4
* These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must necessarily be asked and answered is “whether one constitutionally illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to justify the second?” The answer to this question must always be answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return — quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been filed against the federal government for which a quick remedies must be effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even more should be done, however, as this “contract”can, in many ways, be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from the state authorities and, hence, have no legitimate right to offer.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:5
* Of course, returning the trust fund money including interest and damages to ratepayers and utilities companies quite obviously does not dispose of the hazardous waste. Waste disposal and public safety, though, remains a power of the state governments under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifies that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. The public safety and police power have long been held to be state law matters and most appropriately so.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:6
* While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one’s waste, one must never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the Constitution nor forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful materials in the rangeland of Texas. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to impose one’s waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for the dumper is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor particularly pleasant for the dumpee.
government
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 17:7
* It should not be lost on those interested in this issue that the federal government actually encouraged development of this industry to a degree the market would have never “contemplated” by artificially and, again, illegitimately, imposing a federal cap on damages in liability suits. In order to fully weigh the benefits and costs of nuclear power, external costs must be internalized rather than ignored.
government
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:3
* Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.
government
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:4
* Sadly, the U.S. has in recent years played the role of world interventionist and global policeman. Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address: ‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.’ Instead, the U.S. government has become the government force that unconstitutionally subsidizes one country and then pledges taxpayer dollars and lives to fight on behalf of that subsidized country’ enemies. It’s the same sort of wisdom that would subsidize tobacco farmers and pay the health care costs of those who then choose to smoke.
government
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:5
* Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largesse of this Congress, China enjoys the flow of U.S. taxpayers cash into Beijing’s coffers. Yet, today we are asked to pledge support for Taiwan when we could best demonstrate support for Taiwan by terminating subsidies to that country’s enemies.
government
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 25:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan’s publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it’s proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan’s candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
government
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 25:2
* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.
government
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 25:4
* In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan’s advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan’s stated convictions.
government
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:7
The abuse of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce laws clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer conforms to the constitutional dictates but, instead, is out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 3660 thus endorses the entire process which has so often been condemned by limited government advocates when used by the authoritarians as they constructed the welfare State.
government
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:4
The first reason I would like to mention is a moral reason. There is a moral element involved in trade, because when governments come in and regulate how citizens spend their money, they are telling them what they can do or cannot do. In a free society, individuals who earn money should be allowed to spend the money the way they want. So if they find that they prefer to buy a car from Japan rather than Detroit, they basically have the moral right to spend their money as they see fit and those kinds of choices should not be made by government. So there is a definite moral argument for free trade.
government
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:5
Patrick Henry many years ago touched on this when he said, ‘You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased nor how you are to become a great and powerful people but how your liberties may be secured, for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.’ We have not heard much talk of liberty with regards to trade, but we do hear a lot about enhancing one’s ability to make more money overseas with trading with other nations. But the argument, the moral argument, itself should be enough to convince one in a free society that we should never hamper or interfere with free trade.
government
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:14
Free trade means you can buy and sell freely without interference. You do not need international management. Certainly, if we are not going to have our own government manage our own affairs, we do not want an international body to manage these international trades.
government
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.
government
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:37
I want to use a quote from somebody that I consider rather typical of the establishment. We talk about the establishment, but nobody ever knows exactly who they are. But I will name this individual who I think is pretty typical of the establishment, and that is Walter Cronkite. He says, ‘We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice in an international government.’
government
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:41
It could have the effect of the law of the land, as long as it was a legitimate constitutional agreement that we entered into. But Thomas Jefferson said if the treaty power is unlimited, then we do not have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.
government
TEXAS HOME SCHOOL APPRECIATION WEEK
May 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 32:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as this is Texas Home School Appreciation week, I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute those Texas parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.
government
SENSE OF THE HOUSE IN SUPPORT OF AMERICA’S TEACHERS
May 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 34:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution of the gentlewoman from Texas expressing Congress’ appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers. I would also like to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. The first piece of legislation, H.R. 1706, prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession. Language banning federal funds for national teacher testing and national teacher certification has been included in both the House and Senate versions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:3
The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:4
Since the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier. For example, in 1996, Congress required employers to report the Social Security number of employees as part of the “new hires” database, while in 1998, 210 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Mr. Chairman, my legislation, the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220) forbids Federal or State governments from using the Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:6
Certain well-meaning members of Congress are focusing on the use of the Social Security number by private businesses. However, this ignores the fact that the private sector was only following the lead of the federal government in using the Social Security number as an ID. In many cases, the use of the Social Security number by private business is directly mandated by the government, for example, banks use Social Security numbers as an identifier for their customers because the federal government required them to use the Social Security number for tax reporting purposes. Once the federal government stops using the Social Security number as an identifier, the majority of private businesses, whose livelihood depends on pleasing consumers, will respond to their customers demands and stop using the Social Security number and other standard identifiers
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:9
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that no private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on as massive a scale as the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the case of the Medicare clerk who sold the names of Medicare patients to an HMO, to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties have occurred by government agents. Therefore Congress should focus on the threat to liberty caused by the federal government’s use of uniform identifiers.
government
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:1
* The national debt is rising at an annual rate of a $100 billion per year while the federal government obligation to future generations is rising even faster. Yet, little concern is shown in Congress as our budgets grow and new programs are added on to old. Ordinary political deception has been replaced with the dangerous notion of invincibleness as members claim credit for imaginary budgetary surpluses. The percent of our income that government now takes continues to rise, while personal liberty is steadily compromised with each new budget. But the political euphoria associated with the “New Era” economy will soon come to an end.
government
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:6
* A central bank that has no restraints placed on it is always available to the politicians who spend endlessly for reelection purposes. When the private sector lacks its appetite to lend sufficiently to the government, the Federal Reserve is always available to buy treasury debt with credit created out of thin air. At the slightest hint that interest rates are higher than the Fed wants, its purchase of debt keeps interest rates in check; that is, they are kept lower than the market rate. Setting interest rates is an enormous undertaking. It’s price fixing and totally foreign to the principles of free market competition.
government
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:7
* Since this process is economically stimulating, the politicians, the recipients of government largess, the bankers, and almost everyone enjoys the benefits of what seems to be a gift without cost.
government
The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit
May 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 37:1
* Fiat money, that is, money created out of thin air, causes numerous problems, internationally as well as domestic. It causes domestic price inflation, economic downturns, unemployment, excessive debt, (corporate, personal and government) mal-investment, and over capacity — all very serious and poorly understood by our officials. But fluctuating values of various paper currencies cause all kinds of disruptions in international trade and finance as well.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:2
The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act represents a comprehensive attempt to protect the privacy of individual citizens from government surveillance via the use of standard identifiers. Among the provisions of the legislation is one repealing those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers’ licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. As I am sure my colleagues know, the language authorizing a national ID card was repealed in last year’s Transportation Appropriations bill and language prohibiting the expenditure of funds to develop a personal medical identifier has been included in the past two Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills. These victories where made possible by the thousands of Americans who let their elected representatives know that they were opposed to federally-mandated identifiers.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:4
As a test of citizen resistance, the Census bureau asked 21,000 households to report their Social Security number on their census form. One of the reasons the Census bureau is interested in the Social Security number is as a key to unlock information held by other government agencies.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:8
The Privacy Act of 1974 states that “It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his Social Security number.” This is a good and necessary step toward protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, the language of the Privacy Act allows Congress to require the use of the Social Security number at will. In fact, just two years after the passage of the Privacy Act, Congress explicitly allowed state governments to use the Social Security number as an identifier for tax collection, motor vehicle registration and drivers’ license identification. When one considers the trend toward the use of the Social Security number as an identifier, the need for HR 220 becomes clear.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:9
The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to “investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate” American citizens. Mr. Chairman, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will ensure that American liberty is protected from the “surveillance state.” Allowing the federal government to use standard identifiers to oversee private transactions present tremendous potential for abuse of civil liberties by unscrupulous government officials.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:10
I am sure I need not remind the members of this Committee of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies. Imagine the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ “uniform identifier” into a database.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:11
This history of abuse of personal information by government officials demonstrates that the only effective means of guaranteeing American’s privacy is to limit the ability of the government to collect and store information regarding a citizen’s personal matters. The only way to prevent the government from knowing this information is preventing them from using standard identifiers.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:12
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:13
Certain members of Congress are focusing on the use of the Social Security number and other identifiers by private businesses. However, this ignores the fact that the private sector was only following the lead of the federal government in using the Social Security number as an ID. In many cases, the use of the Social Security number by private business is directly mandated by the government, for example, banks use Social Security numbers as an identifier for their customers because the federal government required them to use the Social Security number for tax reporting purposes. Once the federal government stops using the Social Security number as an identifier, the majority of private businesses, whose livelihood depends on pleasing consumers, will respond to their customers demands and stop using the Social Security number and other standard identifiers in dealing with them.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:16
Some may claim that the federal government needs expanded surveillance powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s tenth amendment.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:17
Others may claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. However, in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:18
The main reason Congress should take action to stop the use of standard identifiers is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 38:19
I once again extend my sincere appreciation to Chairman Horn and the other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and express my hope that this hearing begins the process of protecting the rights of all citizens to conduct their lives free from government intrusion.
government
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:3
* Of course, many of the critics of NTR status for China do not address the free trade and the necessarily negative economic consequences of their position. No one should question that individual rights are vital to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of ‘protecting’ the human rights of citizens of other countries would be internally inconsistent. Trade barriers when lowered, after all, benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available. Those individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are not threatened by lowering barriers for those who do. Oftentimes, these critics focus instead on human rights deprivation by government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to ‘reform’ these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to Father Robert Sirco, a Paulist priest who discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change in China.
government
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:4
* But all of this said, this new 66 page ‘free trade’ bill is not about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before us, this bill contains provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, ‘managed trade’ rather than that of free trade. As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: ‘[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA was called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all its has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is necessary.’
government
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:5
* In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of ‘free trade’ fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the merchantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign. This new PNTR bill, rather than lowering government imposed barriers to trade, has become a legislative vehicle under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy.
government
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:6
* No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don’t be fooled into thinking this bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free Asia.
government
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 41:6
Many people object to this invasion of privacy. They do not place full trust in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Government to protect our privacy. Many say that this would not be an invasion of privacy and there would be some strict rules and regulations about how this medical information would be used, but that is not enough reassurance.
government
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 41:9
So my effort here in limiting this development of a universal medical identifier is to keep the Federal Government out of this business. It is too easy for abuse of this type of information to occur. We have heard that the various administrations over the years have abused records kept in the IRS as well as the FBI. This would just be another source of information that individuals could use in a negative fashion.
government
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 41:10
I believe it is a fallacy for those who promote the setting up of a universal medical identifier and a universal medical data bank that it is an effort to simplify the process, to streamline the system, to make government more efficient, to facilitate medical research. It has also been said this could be used in law enforcement. But just think about this. If these records can be turned over without the approval of the patient to law enforcement, it really, quite clearly, is a violation of the fifth amendment of self-incrimination. So this idea that this medical bank might be beneficial for law enforcement is rather scary and something that we should prevent.
government
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:6
Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.
government
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:20
‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.’ Thomas Jefferson.
government
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:11
“On June 5, WTO Director General Michael Moore emphasized the obedience to WTO rulings as not optional. Quote, the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and if necessary the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.”
government
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:2
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.” Thomas Jefferson.
government
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 57:2
This is truly a civil libertarian issue. It does go back to 1215 with the Magna Carta. It is not an American invention, that people should be protected and not convicted on secret information. This is not something new. However, it has been abused for hundreds of years at least. It has been abused by totalitarian governments.
government
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 57:4
Well, who suffers here? Well, first the immigrant who is being abused of his liberties. But then what? Could this abuse ever be transferred to American citizens? That is the real threat. Now, my colleagues may say, oh, no, that would never happen. Never happen. But that is not the way government works. Government works with incrementalism. It gets us conditioned, gets us to be soft on the protection of liberty.
government
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 57:5
Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of government and the efficiency of government comes second to the protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with good intentions.
government
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 57:6
The national ID card is done with good intention. Those who oppose us on this amendment, I think they are very, very sincere, and they have justifiable concerns and we should address these. But quite frankly, killing and murder for a long time, up until just recently, was always a State matter. This is rather a new phenomenon that we as a Federal Government have taken over so much law enforcement. That is why the Federal Government, when it sets this precedent, is very bad.
government
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:3
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.
government
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:6
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.
government
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:9
* Let us not forget past calamities against U.S. citizens from over zealous federal agents in trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress. Members of the House, you must remember the oath that you swore to uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer. By what authority does the administration set up this new commission, what check will be placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in these changes. Why should we hand over our authority to another branch of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our citizens?
government
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 59:10
* These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business — and have no authority — to mandate how a company runs its business.
government
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:1
* Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
government
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:2
* Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
government
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:5
* Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.
government
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 61:6
* By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
government
THE FAMILY HEALTH TAX CUT ACT
29 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 62:7
* Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child tax relief in order to help them better meet their child’s medical expenses. I would ask any of my colleagues who would say that we cannot enact the Family Tax Cut Act because it would cause the government to lose too much revenue, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working-class parents of a sick child?
government
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:3
* In particular, the resolution refers to American ‘democracy’ and the ‘democratic’ principles upon which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scored as ‘intrusions on the will of the majority.’ Thus in a democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an individual’s right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or even raise ones’ children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time.
government
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:4
* In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.
government
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:5
* Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens’ rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people’s fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.
government
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:6
* Secondly, it is not the proper role of the United States Congress to dictate educational tenets to states and local governments. After all, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any power to dictate, or even suggest, curriculum. Instead the power to determine what is taught in schools is reserved to states, local communities, and, above all, parents.
government
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:7
* In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.
government
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights.
government
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:2
H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening this Pandora’s box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously threatened by majority whims.
government
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 67:3
Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 67:4
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.
government
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 67:5
Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 67:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 68:3
Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 68:4
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.
government
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 68:5
Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000 2000 Ron Paul 68:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). 1 also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:1
* Mr. Chairman, I rise today in hesitant opposition to H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act. We as vigilant Americans must never forget the horrific lessons of the past and those attendant consequences of corporatism, fascism, and tyrannical government; that is, governmental deprivation of individual rights. A government which operates beyond its proper limits of preserving liberty never bodes well for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Particularly, Adolph Hitler’s tyrannical regime is most indicative of the necessary consequences of a government dominated by so-called ‘government-business’ partnerships, gun-confiscation schemes, protectionism, and abandonment of speech and religious freedom in the name of ‘compelling government interests.’
government
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:2
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.
government
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 70:4
* Mr. Chairman, while I agree it is most important to remember and memorialize with a heavy heart the consequences of tyrannical governments operating beyond their proper limits, ignoring our own government’s limits of power and, thus, choosing a means incompatible with its ends to do so must not be tolerated. Hence, I must oppose H.R. 4115.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:1
* Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I must oppose H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act. While I applaud the sections of the bill providing increased flexibility to states to ensure that child support payments go to benefit children, rather than government bureaucrats, other provisions of H.R. 4678 present grave dangers to individual liberty, privacy, constitutional government and the sanctity of the American family.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:3
* However much I share the goals meant to be accomplished by the expanded uses of the database, I must remind my colleagues that the road to serfdom, like the road to hell, is paved with noble purposes and good intentions. Expanding the use of the new hires database brings us closer to the day when the database is a universal tracking system allowing government officials easy access to every individual’s employment and credit history. Providing the government with that level of power to track citizens is to invite abuse of individual liberties.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:4
* The threat of the expansion of the new hires database is magnified by the fact that it uses on the social security number, which has become for all intents and purposes a de facto national ID number. In addition to threatening liberty, forcing Americans to divulge their uniform identifier for inclusion in a database also facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. In order to protect American citizens from both private and public criminals I have introduced legislation, H.R. 220, restricting the use of the social security number to purposes related to social security administration so that the government cannot establish databases linked by a common identifier.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:5
* I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:6
* In a free society, constitutional limits on government power and the liberty of citizens must never be sacrificed to increase the efficiency of any government program, no matter how noble the program’s goal. Again I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the dangerous road toward the loss of liberty begins when members of Congress put other goals ahead of our oath to preserve the Constitution and protect the liberty of our constituents.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:7
* While the expanded use of the new hires database provides sufficient justification for constitutionalists to oppose this bill, H.R. 4678 also must be opposed as it furthers the intrusion of the federal government into family life through the use of federal funds to support ‘fatherhood programs.’ Mr. Speaker, the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor institutionally competent to promote responsible fatherhood. In fact, by leveling taxes on responsible parents to provide special programs for irresponsible parents the federal government is punishing responsible fathers!
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:8
* Federal programs promoting responsible fatherhood are another example of how the unintended consequences of government interventions are used to justify further expansions of state power. After all, it was the federal welfare state which undermined the traditional family as well as the ethic of self-responsibility so vital to maintaining a free society. In particular, the welfare state has promoted the belief that the government (re: taxpayer) has the primary responsibility for child-rearing, not the parents. When a large number of citizens view parenting as proper function of the central state it is inevitable that there will be an increase in those who fail to fulfill their obligations as parents. Without the destructive effects of the welfare state, there would be little need for federal programs to promote responsible fatherhood.
government
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:12
* In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called ‘charitable choice’ program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America’s children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000 2000 Ron Paul 72:3
* Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of ‘double taxation.’ Furthermore, ‘taxing’ benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a ‘shell game’ which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000 2000 Ron Paul 72:4
* Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000 2000 Ron Paul 72:5
* Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000 2000 Ron Paul 72:6
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:4
* We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization — the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.
government
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.
government
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:18
* Congress has also been anxious to block the Voice Stream Communications planned purchase by Deutch Telekom, a German government-owned phone monopoly. We have not yet heard the last of this international trade fight.
government
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.
government
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:4
* As to the ‘federal charter’, where do we find authority for the federal government to charter organizations it deems ‘honorable’? To the extent the ‘charter’ is an honorary title awarded by Congress to organizations which is then ultimately used to threaten exercise of the right to freedom of association, I suggest we repeal not only the Boy Scout’s charter but all federal charters such that they won’t be used as tools of federal meddling.
government
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:5
* While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for merely exercising their constitutional rights — or as syndicated columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:
government
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 74:6
* I think that it’s time for all patriotic organizations that have these federal charters to surrender those documents. It is impossible for a dishonorable organization to honor anyone. And these charters are, practically speaking, worthless. If the federal government believes that mindless non-discrimination trumps morality, then it’s time to disassociate from such bad company.
government
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:2
* Several of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee have expressed opposition to the LIFT Act’s dramatic increase in authorized expenditures for the Even Start family literacy programs. Of course, I share their opposition to the increased expenditure, however, my opposition to this bill is based not as much on the authorized amount but on the bill’s underlaying premise: that the American people either cannot or will not provide educational services to those who need them unless they are forced to do so by the federal government.
government
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:4
* The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that the federal government was incapable of effectively providing services such as education. This is why they carefully limited the federal government’s powers to a few narrowly defined areas. This understanding of the proper role of the federal government was reinforced by the tenth amendment which forbids the Federal Government from controlling education, instead leaving authority over education in the hands of states, local communities and parents.
government
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:5
* Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the federal government and I am here to help you,’ the American education system has deteriorated in the years since Congress disregarded the constitutional limitations on centralizing education in order to ‘improve the schools.’ One could argue that if the federally-controlled schools did a better job of educating children to read, perhaps there would not be a great demand for ‘adult literacy programs!’
government
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:6
* Of course, family literacy programs do serve a vital purpose in society, but I would suggest that not only would family literacy programs exist, they would better serve those families in need of assistance if they were not controlled by the federal government. Because of the generosity of the American people, the issue is not whether family literacy programs will be funded but who should control the education dollars; the American people or the federal government?
government
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:9
* In addition to violating the United States Constitution, the LIFT bill raises some serious questions regarding the relationship between the state and the family. Promoting family literacy is a noble goal but programs such as these may promote undue governmental interference in family life. Many people around the country have expressed concern that ‘parenting improvement’ programs have become excuses for the government bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective control over child-rearing to the government. While none of these complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even Start does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the federal government to interfere with the parent-child relationship to ‘improve’ parenting. Once one accepts that premise, it is a short jump to interfering in all aspects of family life in order to promote the federal government’s vision of ‘quality parenting.’
government
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 76:3
* Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of ‘double taxation.’ Furthermore, ‘taxing’ benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a ‘shell game’ which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 76:4
* Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 76:5
* Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 76:6
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). 1 also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:6
As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although the U.N. charter specifies that none of its provisions ‘shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,’ nothing has ever been found so ‘essentially domestic’ as to exclude U.N. intrusions.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:13
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:15
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:23
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:25
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:26
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.
government
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS
September 18, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 77:28
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL RURAL HOSPITAL PRESERVATION ACT
September 20, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 78:2
* I believe I can speak for all of my colleagues when I say that while none of us want to endanger the Medicare trust fund, we also want to ensure that Medicare reforms do not drive valuable health care providers into bankruptcy. After all, denying Medicare recipients in rural areas access to quality health care breaks the promise the government makes to the American people when it requires them to pay taxes to finance the Medicare trust fund that they will receive quality health care in their golden years.
government
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
September 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 79:5
* Mr. Speaker, it is tough enough for working families to cope with a child with a serious illness without having to sacrifice resources that should be used for the care of that child to the federal government. It is hard to think of a more compassionate action this Congress can take than to reduce taxes on America’s parents in order to allow them to help provide quality health care to their children. I therefore call on my colleagues to join me in helping working parents provide health care to their children by cosponsoring H.R. 4799, the Family Health Tax Cut Act.
government
Congratulating Home Educators And Home Schooled Students
September 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 81:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 578, which celebrates the accomplishments of parents across the nation who have chosen to educate their children at home by designating the first week of October as ‘National Home Schooling Week.’ While serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home-schooling parents in my district. I am very impressed by the job these parents are doing in providing their children with a quality education. I have also found that home schooling parents are among the most committed activists in the cause of advancing individual liberty, constitutional government, and traditional values. I am sure my colleagues on the Education Committee would agree that the support of home schoolers was crucial in defeating the scheme to implement a national student test.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed, and that the best means of improving education is to put parents back in charge. According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:6
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education ‘market.’ Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’ public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal ‘educrats’ while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:9
Certain of my colleagues champion proposals to relieve schools of certain mandates so long as states and localities agree to be held ‘accountable’ to the federal government for the quality of their schools. I have supported certain of these proposals because they do provide states and localities the option of escaping certain federal mandates.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:12
First of all, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between states and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through federal programs or through grants. There is no ‘block grant exception’ to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:13
Furthermore, the federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:14
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core program is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.
government
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:15
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000 2000 Ron Paul 87:1
* Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support HR 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act. This bill takes a step toward protecting the integrity and security of the Social Security number by ensuring that window envelopes used by the Federal Government do not display an individual’s Social Security number. HR 3218 will help protect millions of Americans from the devastating crime of identity theft, which is a growing problem in my district and throughout the country.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000 2000 Ron Paul 87:5
* Unscrupulous people have found ways to exploit this system and steal another’s identity — the ubiquity of the Social Security number paved the way for these very predictable abuses and crimes. Congress must undo the tremendous injury done to the people’s privacy and security by the federal government’s various mandates which transformed the Social Security number into a universal identifier.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000 2000 Ron Paul 87:6
* In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to ‘investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate’ American citizens. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals.
government
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000 2000 Ron Paul 87:7
* While much of the discussion of identity theft and related threats to privacy has concerned private sector criminals, the major threat to privacy lies in the power uniform identifiers give to government officials. I am sure I need not remind my colleagues of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies, or of the cases of government officials rummaging through the confidential files of celebrities and/or their personal acquaintances, or of the Medicare clerk who sold confidential data about Medicare patients to a Health Maintenance Organization. After considering these cases, one cannot help but shudder at the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ ‘uniform identifier’ into a database.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:2
* Mr. Bauman, the author of several books on offshore financial topics, serves as legal counsel to The Sovereign Society (http://www.sovereignsaociety.com), an international group of citizens concerned with the government encroachment on financial freedom.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:10
I was at a conference on April 22, 1999 in Miami sponsored by the respected publication, Money Laundering Alert. Lester Joseph, Assistant Chief of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said that the U.S. Government officially views any offshore financial activity by US persons — any offshore financial activity — especially the use of tax havens, as potential criminal money laundering activity.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:11
Now, it’s quite obvious that financial activities in which a person engages when wealth is moved offshore for asset protection, for broader investment potential, for any number of legitimate reasons, for possible tax savings, any of these moves, are innocent in themselves. Former Secretary of the US Treasury, Robert Rubin, admitted in congressional testimony last year, it is the intention behind these innocent financial moves that government agents want to police for possible criminal investigation and prosecution.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:12
So now we have the government money police targeting normal financial activities that until recently have been perfectly legal, simply because a person decides in his own best interests, to go offshore. We all know that in the US, African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other racial minorities have been unfairly subject to police ‘profiling.’ Add to that list of ‘presumed guilty,’ Americans who engaged in offshore financial activity.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:14
For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:18
Laws enacted under the banner of the war on drugs intentionally have forced bankers to become spies for the federal financial police. The bankers’ primary allegiance now is not to customers or clients, but to the government.
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:20
That great economist, Wilhelm Roepke, once wrote: ‘It is very easy to awaken resentment against people who not only have money, but also the boldness to send that money abroad in order to protect it against all manner of domestic insecurity. It’s vital that people in their means of existence, that is, capital, still have the chance to move about internationally, and when absolutely necessary, to escape the arbitrariness of government policy by means of secret back doors.’
government
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 88:30
Every one of the wealthy nations that are pushing this attack on tax havens are controlled by high-tax, socialist governments who see a tax and wealth hemorrhage occurring among their citizens. Yes, millions, billions of dollars, pounds and francs are pouring out of high tax nations flowing to offshore tax havens — and for very good reasons. Why would anyone in his right mind continue to pay confiscatory taxes when you can move your financial activity to another nation where you pay no personal or corporate income tax, no estate tax, no capital gains tax?
government
PALMETTO BEND CONVEYANCE ACT
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 89:3
* This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as $1 million per year as well as provide an immediate infusion of millions of dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.
government
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 90:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the Older Americans Act Reauthorization (H.R. 782) and explain why I must vote against this bill. Of course, I support efforts to ensure America’s senior citizens have access to employment, nutritional and other services; however the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor competent to provide such services.
government
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 90:2
* Under the tenth amendment, the federal government is forbidden from interfering in areas such as providing employment and nutritional services to any group of citizens. Thus, when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to support these services, it is violating the constitution. In a constitutional republic, good intentions are no excuse for constitutional carelessness.
government
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 90:3
* Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by involving itself in these areas, the federal government has politicized the offering of these services as well as assured inefficiencies in their delivery — inefficiencies that would not be present if the federal government respected its constitutional limits and allowed states, local communities and private citizens to provide these vital services to seniors. For example, one of the most contentious areas of this bill is the funding that goes to private organization to provide employment services. Many of these organizations are involved in partisan politics, and, because money is fungible, the federal grants to these organizations make taxpayers de facto underwriters of their political activities. As Thomas Jefferson said: ‘To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ action is inevitable whenever Congress exceeds its constitutional limitations and abuses the taxing power by forcing citizens to support the charitable activities of congressionally-favored organizations. One reason for this is that federal funding encourages these organizations to become involved in lobbying in order to gain more federal support. These organizations may even form alliances with other advocacy groups in order to build greater support for their cause.
government
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 90:4
* When social services are nationalized, there is inevitably waste and inefficiency in the distribution of the services. This is because when the government administers social services the lion’s share of those services are provided to those with the most effective lobby or those whose Congressional representative is able to exercise the most clout at appropriations time. While I applaud the efforts of certain of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee to direct resources to where they are truly needed, particularly Mr. Barrett’s efforts to bring more resources to rural areas, the politicization of social services will inevitably result in some areas receiving inadequate funding to meet their demand for those services. I have little doubt that if these programs were restored to the private sector those areas with the greatest concentration of needy seniors would receive priority over those areas with the most powerful lobby.
government
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 90:6
* Mr. Speaker, several years ago, when people still recognized their moral duty to voluntarily help their fellow humans rather than expect the government to coerce their fellow citizens to provide assistance through the welfare state, my parents were involved in a local Meals-on-Wheels program run by their church. I remember how upset they were when their local program was forced to conform to federal standards or close its program because Congress had decided to take control of delivering hot food to the elderly. It is time that this Congress return to the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and return responsibility for providing services to the nation’s seniors to states, communities, churches, and other private organizations who can provide those services much more effectively and efficiently than the federal government.
government
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 91:4
* If the steady decline of America’s education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
government
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:16
* If IRAs are to continue to be a real help for people as they plan for their retirement years, it is past time for the federal government to allow higher contributions.
government
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:3
* Mises, the great 20th century economist, predicted decades before the fall of the Soviet system that socialism was unworkable and would collapse upon itself. Although he did not live to see it, he would not have been surprised to witness the events of 1989 with the collapse of the entire Communist-Soviet system. Likewise, the interventionist-welfare system endorsed by the West, including the United States, is unworkable. Even without the current problems in the Presidential election, signs of an impasse within our system were evident. Inevitably, a system that decides almost everything through pure democracy will sharply alienate two groups: the producers, and the recipients of the goods distributed by the popularly elected congresses. Our system is not only unfairly designed to take care of those who do not work, it also rewards the powerful and influential who can gain control of the government apparatus. Control over government contracts, the military industrial complex and the use of our military to protect financial interests overseas is worth great sums of money to the special interests in power.
government
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:4
* Even though it is argued that there are huge budget surpluses in Washington, instead of budget compromise, a stalemate results. Each side wants even a greater share of the loot being distributed by the politicians. Even with the windfall revenues, no serious suggestion is made in Washington for cuts in spending. Instead of moving toward a market economy and less dependency on the federal government in the midst of this so-called ‘prosperity,’ we continue to go World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Although in the early stages of interventionism and government planning, especially when a great deal of wealth is available for redistribution, it seems to enhance prosperity while prolonging the financial bubble on which the economy is dependent. The monetary system, both our domestic system as well as the international fiat system, plays a key role in the artificial prosperity based on inflated currencies as well as debt and speculation.
government
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:5
* The pretended goal of the economic planners has been economic fairness through redistribution of wealth, politically correct social consciousness, and an all-intrusive government which becomes a responsibility for personal safety, health and education while personal responsibility is diminished. The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. The concentrated effort has been to gain power through the control of wealth with a scheme that pretends to treat everybody fairly. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs are present in our system of welfarism. This election in many ways politically demonstrates this economic reality. The political stalemate reflects the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both will eventually cause deep division and hardship. The real problem-preserving of the free market and private property rights- if ignored, will only make things worse, because the only solution that will be offered in Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increase in monetary inflation, more debt, greater military activity throughout the world, and priming the economic pump with more expenditures for weapons we do not need.
government
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:7
* Government statistics continue to tell us that price inflation is not a problem, and when an inflation statistic comes out it does not like, it drops out food and energy and claims the number is totally benign. Ask any housewife, and they will tell you that the cost of living is going up steadily and much more rapidly than the government will admit. We in the Congress should be prepared for lower revenues in the future since the revenues received in the last couple of years were artificially created by a stock market that had skyrocketed due to the credit expansion by the Federal Reserve. These capital gains tax revenues will soon disappear. The savings rates of the American people are now negative. Without savings, true capital investment cannot be maintained. Creation of credit out of thin air by the Fed was the original problem, so it surely can’t be the solution.
government
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:4
We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization—the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.
government
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.
government
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:16
Congress has also been anxious to block the Voice Stream Communications planned purchase by Deutsche Telekom, a German government-owned phone monopoly. We have not yet heard the last of this international trade fight.
government
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.
government
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 95:5
* To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, or especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled and protected by warships of a foreign power, say the Russians. What would we then think if that same power patrolling the Gulf built air bases in Texas and Florida with our government=s complicity with the argument that this was necessary to protect “their” oil and with our government’s complicity? This would anger many Americans and this anger would be directed to both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters and our own government that permitted it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.
government
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 95:10
* Our current foreign policy does nothing more than stir the flames of hatred of both sides, clearly evident as we witness the daily fighting between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Growing influence of the radical Islamic fundamentalists will allow them one day to overthrow the secular moderate puppet regimes supported by our government.
government
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act secure in the belief that were James Madison on the floor today, he would share my opposition to this bill. Congress has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer funds to promote the life and thought of any individual. Congressional actions exceeding the limitations on congressional power contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution undermine the very principles of limited government to which James Madison devoted his life. In fact, few have been as eloquent in pointing out how liberty is threatened when Congress exceeds its enumerated powers:
government
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:2
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.—Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 (Madison, 1865, I, page 546)
government
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:3
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the goals of promoting public awareness and appreciation of, the life and thought of James Madison. In fact, through my work with various educational organizations, I have probably done as much as any member to promote the thought of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers. James Madison’s writings provide an excellent guide to the principles underlying the true nature of the American government. In addition, Madison’s writings address many issues of concern to friends of limited government today, such as the need for each branch of government to respect the Separation of Powers, the threat posed to individual liberty by an interventionist foreign policy, and the differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy.
government
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:4
However, the continuing growth of the federal government and Congress’ refusal to abide by its constitutional limits suggest that the people most in need of familiarization with the thought of James Madison are those who would support this bill.
government
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:5
Mr. Speaker, S. 3137 exceeds the constitutional limits on Congressional power, and thus violates the principles of limited government upon which our constitutional system was based. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pay appropriate tribute to James Madison by rejecting this unconstitutional bill.
government
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:12
* Unfortunately, there are some who are concerned about this who say there is going to be gridlock and the two sides will not get together and the Government is now divided, the House and the Senate and the Presidency is undecided and therefore there will be gridlock. Quite frankly, I do not think that will happen. I sort of would hope that we would have some gridlock.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security Administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:4
* Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to the Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an uniform identifier, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft — yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:5
* This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:6
* In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:7
* Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:8
* Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:9
* Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:10
* Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:11
* Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:12
* Second, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:13
* Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposal, which allow medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:14
* The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with chains of the Constitution.”
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 1:16
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 3:3
* Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 3:9
* Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
Introduction Of The Teacher Tax Cut Act
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 4:2
* Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance to education distract us from our important work of removing government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.
government
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:2
I do have some concerns about how we respond so often to disasters like this because we believe that we can solve all our problems by just going to the taxpayers. I know that this does not seem like the appropriate time to raise the question, but there was a time in our history when we did not assume that it was a constitutional approach to tax poor people in America to help people in other parts of the world. We have always resorted to charities and volunteer approaches, and I still believe that is proper. I do not think there is evidence to show that aid to governments is necessarily the most efficient manner of helping other people.
government
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:8
First, the notion of taxing the fruits of financially struggling Americans with no constitutional authority only to send it to foreign governments is reprehensible. One of the problems with such aid is that it ultimately ends up in the hands of foreign bureaucrats who merely use it to advance their own foreign government agendas thus making it less likely to get to those most deserving. One need only compare the success of private charities in this country with those government relief efforts to clearly see government’s profound and inherently inept record.
government
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:9
Secondly, forced “contributions” erode any satisfaction that comes from being a charitable individual. Without the personal choice of giving or not giving to charitable relief efforts, the decision to be charitable and the moral reward of so doing is completely eroded by the forcebased government.
government
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:10
Lastly, as a result of such actions as these, participation dwindles worldwide for the most efficient means of dealing with such catastrophes, that is, private disaster insurance. When disaster costs are socialized, greater catastrophic results are encouraged as more people ignore the costs of living in riskier areas. At the same time, these same actors ignore the cost savings and other benefits of living in safer areas. Governments acting to socialize these costs actually stimulates the eventual death and destruction of more people and their property. (This, of course, is a lesson that the United States should learn to apply domestically, as well.)
government
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:11
While I truly do extend my heartfelt sympathy to those victims of the recent natural disaster in India, my duty remains to protect the U.S. taxpayer and uphold the constitutional limits of our Federal Government. For this reason and each of those detailed above, I must oppose this resolution.
government
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic, the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools where singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.
government
Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001 2001 Ron Paul 6:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to preform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:3
The media are demanding the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress immediately yield to those insisting on higher taxes and more federal government intervention for the sake of national unity , because our government is neatly split between two concise philosophic views. But if one looks closely, one is more likely to find only a variation of a single system of authoritarianism, in contrast to the rarely mentioned constitutional, non-authoritarian approach to government.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:5
The feared gridlock anticipated for the 107th Congress will differ little from the other legislative battles in recent previous congresses. Yes, there will be heated arguments regarding the size of budgets, local vs. federal control, and private vs. government solutions. But a serious debate over the precise role for government is unlikely to occur. I do not expect any serious challenge to the 20th Century consensus of both major parties-that the federal government has a significant responsibility to deal with education, health care, retirement programs, or managing the distribution of the welfare state benefits. Both parties are in general agreement on monetary management, environmental protection, safety and risks both natural and man-made. Both participate in telling others around the world how they must adopt a democratic process similar to ours, as we police our worldwide financial interests.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:6
We can expect most of the media-directed propaganda to be designed to speed up and broaden the role of the federal government in our lives and the economy. Unfortunately, the token opposition will not present a principled challenge to big government, only an argument that we must move more slowly and make an effort to allow greater local decision-making. Without presenting a specific philosophic alternative to authoritarian intervention from the left, the opposition concedes that the principle of government involvement per se is proper, practical, and constitutional.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:8
The effort always is to soften the image of the authoritarians who see a need to run the economy and regulate people’s lives, while pretending not to give up any of the advantages of the free market or the supposed benefits that come from a compassionate-welfare or a socialist government. It’s nothing more than political have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too deception. Many insecure and wanting citizens cling to the notion that they can be taken care of through government benevolence without sacrificing the free market and personal liberty. Those who anxiously await next month’s government check prefer not to deal with the question of how goods and services are produced and under what political circumstances they are most efficiently provided. Sadly, whether personal freedom is sacrificed in the process is a serious concern for only a small number of Americans.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:9
The Third Way , a bipartisan compromise that sounds less confrontational and circumvents the issue of individual liberty, free markets, and production is an alluring, but dangerous, alternative. The harsh reality is that it is difficult to sell the principles of liberty to those who are dependent on government programs. And this includes both the poor beneficiaries as well as the self-serving wealthy elites who know how to benefit from government policies. The authoritarian demagogues are always anxious to play on the needs of people made dependent by a defective political system of government intervention while perpetuating their own power. Anything that can help the people to avoid facing the reality of the shortcomings of the welfare/warfare state is welcomed. Thus our system is destined to perpetuate itself until the immutable laws of economics bring it to a halt at the expense of liberty and prosperity.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:13
The argument that this bipartisan approach is a reasonable compromise between the total free-market or local-government approach and that of a huge activist centralized government approach may appeal to some, but it is fraught with great danger. Big government clearly wins; limited government and the free market lose. Any talk of a Third Way is nothing more than propaganda for big government. It’s no compromise at all. The principle of federal government control is fully endorsed by both sides, and the argument that the Third Way might slow the growth of big government falls flat. Actually, with bipartisan cooperation, government growth may well accelerate.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:14
How true bipartisanship works in Washington is best illustrated by the way a number of former Members of Congress make a living after leaving office. They find it quite convenient to associate with other former Members of the opposing party and start a lobbying firm. What might have appeared to be contentious differences when in office are easily put aside to lobby their respected party Members. Essentially no philosophic difference of importance exists-it’s only a matter of degree and favors sought, since both parties must be won over. The differences they might have had while they were voting Members of Congress existed only for the purpose of appealing to their different constituencies, not serious differences of opinion as to what the role of government ought to be. This is the reality of bipartisanship. Sadly our system handsomely rewards those who lobby well and in a bipartisan fashion. Congressional service too often is a training ground or a farm system for the ultimate government service: lobbying Congress for the benefit of powerful and wealthy special interests.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:15
It should be clearly evident, however, that all the campaign finance reforms and lobbying controls conceivable will not help the situation. Limiting the right to petition Congress or restricting people’s right to spend their own money will always fail and is not morally acceptable and misses the point. As long as government has so much to offer, public officials will be tempted to accept the generous offers of support from special interests. Those who can benefit have too much at stake not to be in the business of influencing government. Eliminating the power of government to pass out favors is the only real solution. Short of that, the only other reasonable solution must come by Members’ refusal to be influenced by the pressure that special-interest money can exert. This requires moral restraint by our leaders. Since this has not happened, special-interest favoritism has continued to grow.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:16
The bipartisanship of the last 50 years has allowed our government to gain control over half of the income of most Americans. Being enslaved half the time is hardly a good compromise. But supporters of the political status quo point out that, in spite of the loss of personal freedom, the country continues to thrive in many ways.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:19
* What is the cost in economic terms? * Have we sacrificed our liberties for government security?
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:24
As we move into the next Congress, some worry that gridlock will make it impossible to get needed legislation passed. This seems highly unlikely. If big government supporters found ways to enlarge the government in the past, the current evenly split Congress will hardly impede this trend and may even accelerate it. With a recession on the horizon, both sides will be more eager than ever to cooperate on expanding federal spending to stimulate the economy , whether the fictitious budget surplus shrinks or not.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:28
Many argue that the compromise of bipartisanship is needed to get even a little of what the limited-government advocates want. But this is a fallacious argument. More freedom can never be gained by giving up freedom, no matter the rationale.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:29
If liberals want $46 billion for the Department of Education and conservatives argue for $42 billion, a compromise of $44 billion is a total victory for the advocates of federal government control of public education. “Saving” $2 billion means nothing in the scheme of things, especially since the case for the constitutional position of zero funding was never entertained. When the budget and government controls are expanding each year, a token cut in the proposed increase means nothing, and those who claim it to be a legitimate victory do great harm to the cause of liberty by condoning the process. Instead of it being a Third Way alternative to the two sides arguing over minor details on how to use government force, the three options instead are philosophically the same. A true alternative must be offered if the growth of the state is to be contained. Third-Way bipartisanship is not the answer.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:31
But this is not what is being talked about in DC when an effort is made to find a Third Way . Both sides are talking about expanding government, and neither side questions the legitimacy of the particular program involved. Unless the moral and constitutional debate changes, there can be no hope that the trend toward bigger government with a sustained attack on personal liberty will be reversed. It must become a moral and constitutional issue.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:34
Nothing should be taken for granted, neither our liberties nor our material well being. Understanding the nature of a free society and favorably deciding on its merit are required before true reform can be expected. If, however, satisfaction and complacency with the current trend toward bigger and more centralized government remain the dominant view, those who love liberty more than promised security must be prepared for an unpleasant future. And those alternative plans will surely vary from one another. Tragically for some it will contribute to the violence that will surely come when promises of government security are not forthcoming. We can expect further violations of civil liberties by a government determined to maintain order when difficult economic and political conditions develop.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:35
But none of this needs occur if the principles that underpin our Republic, as designed by the Founders, can be resurrected and re-instituted. Current problems that we now confront are government-created and can be much more easily dealt with when government is limited to its proper role of protecting liberty, instead of promoting a welfare-fascist state.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:43
Western leaders for most of the 20th Century have come to accept a type of central planning they believe is not burdened by the shortcomings of true socialist-type central planning. Instead of outright government ownership of the means of production, the economy was to be fine-tuned by fixing interest rates (FED Funds Rates), subsidizing credit (Government Sponsored Enterprises), stimulating sluggish segments of the economy (Farming and the Weapons Industry), aiding the sick (Medicaid and Medicare), federally managing education (Department of Education), and many other welfare schemes.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:45
In an economic downturn, a large majority of our political leaders believe that the ill effects of recession can be greatly minimized by monetary and fiscal policy. Although cutting taxes is always beneficial, spending one’s way out of a recession is no panacea. Even if some help is gained by cutting taxes or temporary relief given by an increase in government spending, they distract from the real cause of the downturn: previously pursued faulty monetary policy. The consequences of interest-rate manipulation in a recession-along with tax and spending changes-are unpredictable and do not always produce the same results each time they’re used. This is why interest rates of less than 1% and massive spending programs have not revitalized Japan’s economy or her stock market. We may well be witnessing the beginning of a major worldwide economic downturn, making even more unpredictable the consequence of conventional western-style central bank tinkering.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:46
There’s good reason to believe the Congress and the American people ought to be concerned and start preparing for a slump that could play havoc with our federal budget and the value of the American dollar. Certainly the Congress has a profound responsibility in this area. If we ignore the problems, or continue to endorse the economic myths of past generations, our prosperity will be threatened. But our liberties could be lost, as well, if expanding the government’s role in the economy is pursued as the only solution to the crisis.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:47
It’s important to understand how we got ourselves into this mess. The blind faith that wealth and capital can be created by the central bank’s creating money and credit out of thin air, using government debt as its collateral, along with fixing short-term interest rates, is a myth that must one day be dispelled. All the hopes of productivity increases in a dreamed-about new-era economy cannot repeal eternal economic laws.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:51
When the recession hits full force, even the extraordinary power and influence of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, along with all the other central banks of the world, won’t be able to stop the powerful natural economic forces that demand equilibrium. Liquidation of unreasonable debt and the elimination of the over-capacity built into the system and a return to trustworthy money and trustworthy government will be necessary. Quite an undertaking!
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:57
The most recent new era of the 1990s appeared to be an answer to all politicians’ dreams: a good economy, low unemployment, minimal price inflation, a skyrocketing stock market, with capital gains tax revenues flooding the Treasury, thus providing money to accommodate every special-interest demand. But it was too good to be true. It was based on an inflated currency and massive corporate, personal, and government borrowing. A recession was inevitable to pay for the extravagance that many knew was an inherent part of the new era, understanding that abundance without a commensurate amount of work was not achievable.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:59
A slumping stock market will also cause the dollar to decline and interest rates to rise. Federal Reserve Board central planning through interest-rate control is not a panacea. It is instead the culprit that produces the business cycle. Government and FED officials have been reassuring the public that no structural problems exists, citing no inflation and a gold price that reassures the world that the dollar is indeed still king.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:60
The FED can create excess credit, but it can’t control where it goes as it circulates throughout the economy; nor can it dictate value either. Claiming that a subdued government-rigged CPI and PPI proves that no inflation exists is pure nonsense. It is well established that, under certain circumstances, new credit inflation can find its way into the stock or real estate market, as it did in the 1920s, while consumer prices remain relatively stable. This does not negate the distortion inherit in a system charged with artificially low interest rates. Instead it allows the distortion to last longer and become more serious, leading to a bigger correction.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:61
If gold prices reflected the true extent of the inflated dollar, confidence in the dollar specifically and in paper more generally would be undermined. It is a high priority of the FED and all central banks of the world for this not to happen. Revealing to the public the fraud associated with all paper money would cause loss of credibility of all central banks. This knowledge would jeopardize the central banks’ ability to perform the role of lender of last resort and to finance/monetize government debt. It is for this reason that the price of gold in their eyes must be held in check.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:63
A similar effort continues today, with central banks selling and loaning gold to keep the price in check. It’s working and does convey false confidence, but it can’t last. Most Americans are wise to the government’s statistics regarding prices and the “no-inflation” rhetoric. Everyone is aware that the prices of oil, gasoline, natural gas, medical care, repairs, houses, and entertainment have all been rapidly rising. The artificially low gold price has aided the government’s charade, but it has also allowed a bigger bubble to develop. This policy cannot continue. Economic law dictates a correction that most Americans will find distasteful and painful. Duration and severity of the liquidation phase of the business cycle can be limited by proper responses, but it cannot be avoided and could be made worse if the wrong course is chosen.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:64
Recent deterioration of the junk-bond market indicates how serious the situation is. Junk bonds are now paying 9% to 10% more than short-term government securities. The quality of business loans is suffering, while more and more corporate bonds are qualifying for junk status. The FED tries to reassure us by attempting to stimulate the economy with low short-term FED fund rates at the same time interest rates for businesses and consumers are rising. There comes a time when FED policy is ineffective, much to everyone’s chagrin.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:66
There is much more to inflation than rising prices. Inflation is defined as the increase in the supply of money and credit. Obsessively sticking to the rising prices definition conveniently ignores placing the blame on the responsible party – the Federal Reserve. The last thing central banks or the politicians, who need a backup for all their spending mischief, want is for the government to lose its power to create money out of thin air, which serves political and privileged financial interests.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:67
When the people are forced to think only about rising prices, government-doctored price indexes can dampen concerns for inflation. Blame then can be laid at the doorstep of corporate profiteers, price gougers, labor unions, oil sheikhs, or greedy doctors. But it is never placed at the feet of highly paid athletes or entertainers. It would be economically incorrect to do so, but it’s political correctness that doesn’t allow some groups to be vilified.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:69
The extra credit in the 1990s has found its way especially into the housing market like never before. GSEs, in particular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have gobbled up huge sums to finance a booming housing market. GSE securities enjoy implicit government guarantees, which have allowed for a generous discount on most housing loans. They have also been the vehicles used by consumers to refinance and borrow against their home equity to use these funds for other purposes, such as investing in the stock market. This has further undermined savings by using the equity that builds with price inflation that homeowners enjoy when money is debased. In addition, the Federal Reserve now buys and holds GSE securities as collateral in their monetary operations. These securities are then literally used as collateral for printing Federal Reserve notes; this is a dangerous precedent.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:77
Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:87
Operating foreign policy by Executive Orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that’s currently being done.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:92
For years the US has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF- another arm of one-world government.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:94
These programs run by the international institutions are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It’s all a charade, and if left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:96
Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our military and Hollywood. In December, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen used $295,000 of taxpayer money to host a party in Los Angeles for Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the military in a good light . A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the US government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Now here’s where real separation is needed!
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:112
We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation, and inflation, the correction that’s to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism. If, indeed, the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:114
But the system of government we have become accustomed to has, for decades, taken over responsibilities that were never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. Although mostly well intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional Republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians. Our presidents are now elected by less than 20% of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:116
Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choice are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:117
Issues like abortion and euthanasia don’t disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such acts, the state is responsible for protecting life, rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for government than we currently have.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:118
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:126
The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms. Ironically we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous over-usage of Ritalin.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:129
All addiction — alcohol and illegal drugs — should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior, just for the sake of changing unpopular habits, never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals. When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol (also a drug), or even from the lack of sleep causes injury to another, local law-enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the Justice Department using army tanks to bomb the Davidians because federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:130
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to spend more dollars for foreign military operations in places such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow government to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:132
The notion that the Federal government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts, and bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:133
Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile airbags when they present a danger to a child without federal permission. Riding in a car without a seat belt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets? That would reduce serious injury and save many dollars for the government health system.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:134
Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs, and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:135
Today if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness, and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA- and only after much begging and pleading. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk. The government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in government think that’s what they are supposed to do for the good of the people .
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:136
Free choice is what freedom is all about. And it means freedom to take risks as well. As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the government encroachment into health-care choices has been very detrimental.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:137
There are many areas where the federal government has gotten involved when it shouldn’t have, and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the federal government has improved education or medicine, in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years. Yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates. How bad it will get before we reject the big-government approach is anybody’s guess.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:138
Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever-more intrusive government. The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government. Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the government’s invasion of privacy.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:139
We must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our government to manage a welfare state and to operate foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:140
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the government: the US Constitution.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:141
For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:147
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money, and self-reliance have been eroded, and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits, and voluntary contracts.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:149
There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music, and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:151
Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than is generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed aren’t even counted. Lower-middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living many others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:153
The quality of medical care is slipping, and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make America feel more confident about the future of health care.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:154
Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.
government
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:155
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:12
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term “foreign policy” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one. Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:15
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:20
For years the U.S. has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF, another arm of one-world government.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:22
Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the international criminal court, always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man. These programs, run by the international institutions, are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It is all a charade. If left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:25
A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the U.S. Government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Here is where real separation is needed.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:43
We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation and inflation, the correction that is to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:44
If indeed the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:46
Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Constitution.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:48
Our presidents now are elected by less than 20 percent of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:49
The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:50
The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:51
Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:52
Issues like abortion and euthanasia do not disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such act, the State is responsible for protecting life rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for Government than we currently have.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:53
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:55
It is clear that even if it were a legitimate function for Government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through Government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else the Government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:66
Ironically, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while Government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous overusage of Ritalin. This makes no sense whatsoever.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:69
All addiction, alcohol and illegal drugs, should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior just for the sake of changing unpopular habits never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:71
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to use more dollars for foreign military operations in places, such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow governments to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:73
The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:76
Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile air bags when they present a danger to a child without Federal permission.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:77
Riding in a car without a seatbelt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets that would reduce serious injuries and save many dollars for the government health system.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:78
Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the Government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only the politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:80
The Government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in Government think that is what they are supposed to do for the good of the people. Free choice is what freedom is all about and it means freedom to take risks, as well.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:81
As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the Government encroachment into the health care choices has been very detrimental.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:82
There are many areas where the Federal Government has been involved when they should not have and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the Federal Government has improved education or medicine in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years, yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:83
How bad will it get before we reject the big government approach is anybody’s guess.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:84
Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever more intrusive government.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:85
The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:86
Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the Government’s invasion of privacy. But we must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our Government to manage a welfare state and to operate a foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:87
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the Government, the U.S. Constitution.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:88
For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First, it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:93
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money and self-reliance have been eroded; and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits and voluntary contracts.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:95
There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:97
Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed are not even counted. Lower middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:99
The quality of medical care is slipping and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make Americans feel more confident about the future of health care. Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.
government
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:100
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.
government
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:2
* Mr. Whalen properly identifies the Social Security number and its use as a universal identifier as the root cause of identity theft. Unfortunately, thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, or even go fishing without showing their Social Security number. Following the lead of the federal government, many private industries now use the Social Security number as an identifier. After all, if a bank needs to see their customers’ Social Security number to comply with IRS regulations, why shouldn’t the bank use the Social Security number as a general customer identifier?
government
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:3
* In order to end this government-facilitated identity theft, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (H.R. 220). This act requires the Social Security Administration to issue new, randomly-generated Social Security numbers to all citizens within five years of enactment. The Social Security Administration would be legally forbidden to give out the new number for any purpose not related to Social Security administration. Numbers issued prior to implementation of this legislation would have no legal value as an identifier — although the Social Security Administration could continue to use the old numbers to cross reference an individual’s records to ensure smooth administration of the Social Security system.
government
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:4
* This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
government
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 11:5
* I urge my colleagues to read the attached article and act to repeal government policies which facilitate identity theft by cosponsoring the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
The Economy
February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Speaker: Many government and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly argued that we have no inflation to fear. Yet those who claim this, define inflation as rising consumer and producer prices. Although inflation frequently leads to price increases we must remember that the free market definition of inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit. Monetary inflation is seductive in that it can cause great harm without significantly affecting government price indices. The excess credit may well go into stock market and real estate speculation with consumer price increases limited to such things as energy, repairs, medical care and other services. One should not conclude, as so many have in the past decade, that we have no inflation to worry about. Imbalances did develop with the 1990’s monetary inflation but were ignored. They are now becoming readily apparent as sharp adjustments take place—such as we have seen in the past year in the NASDAQ.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article, “Blame Congress for HMOs” by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, to my colleagues. Ms. Brase demolishes the myth that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), whose power to deny Americans the health care of their choice has been the subject of much concern, are the result of an unregulated free-market. Instead, Ms. Brase reveals how HMOs were fostered on the American people by the federal government for the express purpose of rationing care.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:3
* The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs. However, it was Congress which had caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to costs when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to control health care cost stripped away, and because politicians where unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs, preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients, and mandating that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sounds like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, Big Government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:4
* Mr. Speaker, in reading this article, I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today promoting the so-called “patients’ rights” legislation which attempts to deal with the problem of the HMOs by imposing new federal mandates on the private sector. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs in the free market, and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:5
* As Ms. Brase, points out, so-called “patients’ rights” legislation will only further empower federal bureaucrats to make health care decisions for individuals and entrench the current government-HMO complex. Furthermore, because the Patient’s Bill of Rights will increase health care costs, thus increasing the number of Americans without health insurance, it will result in pleas for yet another government intervention in the health care market!
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:7
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read this article and take its lesson to heart. Government-managed care, whether of the socialist or corporatist variety, is doomed to failure. Congress must instead restore a true free-market in health care if we are serious about creating conditions under which individuals can receive quality care free of unnecessary interference from third-parties and central planners.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:14
Limited by a noninterference promise attached to Medicare law — enacted in response to concerns that government health care would permit rationing — Congress and federal officials had to be creative. Although Medicare officials could not deny services outright, they could shift financial risk to doctors and hospitals, thereby influencing decision-making at the bedside.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:22
In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: “I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. ..... This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. ..... I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.” In a roll call vote, only Senator Herman Talmadge voted against the bill.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:25
Congress’s plan to save its members’ political skins and national agendas relied on employer-sponsored coverage and taxpayer subsidies to HMOs. The planners’ long-range goal was to place Medicare and Medicaid recipients into managed care where HMO managers, instead of Congress, could ration care and the government’s financial liability
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:26
To accomplish this goal, public officials had to ensure that HMOs developed the size and stability necessary to take on the financial risks of capitated government health-care programs. This required that HMOs capture a significant portion of the private insurance market. Once Medicare and Medicaid recipients began to enroll in HMOs, the organizations would have the flexibility to pool their resources, redistribute private premium dollars, and ration care across their patient populations.
government
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:33
The move to managed care has been strongly supported by public-health officials who anticipate that public-private partnerships will provide funding for public-health infrastructure and initiatives, along with access to the medical records of private patients. The fact that health care is now organized in large groups by companies that hold millions of patient records and control literally hundreds of millions of health-care dollars has allowed unprecedented relationships to form between governments and health plans.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 16:5
* Federal control of teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching ceirtificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 16:6
* Many educators are voicing opposition to national teacher certification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.
government
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 16:7
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America’s teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing.
government
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:7
6. If investors of a foreign nation had a stake in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and their country was dependent on oil imports for subsistence, is that country justified in militarily dominating the Gulf and use of U.S. soil for basing operations? My guess is Americans would be furious even if done with our government official’s approval. Yet we expect the Arab world — a world quite different from ours — to accept our presence and domination. Is it not possible for our policy in the region to show more “humility” rather than pursue a policy that incites Islamic fundamentalists against us leading to what they see as acts of self defense and we see as acts of terrorism?
government
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:8
7. How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress?
government
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:4
The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution, which uses the Congressional Review Act to repeal the so-called Medical Privacy regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This “one-size-fits-all” approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Certain individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:2
* The so-called “medical privacy” regulations not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, they actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:3
* Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:4
* Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:8
* In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:10
* By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a “unique health care identifier” while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Mr. Speaker, Congress must heed the wishes of the American people and repeal these HHS regulations before they go into effect and become a backdoor means of numbering each American and recording their information in a massive health care database.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:12
* I ask my colleagues to consider what will happen to that trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers or handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant?
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:13
* Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that questions regarding who should or should not have access to one’s medical privacy are best settled by way of contract between a patient and a provider. However, the government-insurance company complex that governs today’s health care industry has deprived individual patients of control over their health care records, as well as over numerous other aspects of their health care. Rather than put the individual back in charge of his or her medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ privacy regulations give the federal government the authority to decide who will have access to individual medical records. These regulations thus reduce individuals’ ability to protect their own medical privacy.
government
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 19:14
* These regulations violate the fundamental principles of a free society by placing the perceived “societal” need to advance medical research over the individual’s right to privacy. They also violate the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant and could facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing this latest threat to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Medical Privacy Protection Resolution.
government
Earthquake Relief For El Salvador
20 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 20:3
At the subcommittee I introduced an amendment for discussion purposes only. That amendment would have deleted the specific references to governmental assistance contained in this bill. Had that amendment been adopted I could have supported this resolution. Simply, I believe it is not proper for us to force taxpayers in this country to provide this kind of assistance by having the IRS collect these funds. Next, I believe that the Red Cross, for example, would not only be a more sympathetic entity for the purposes of collecting funds used for relief, but also that it would be a more efficient distributor of such funds than are the plethora of government agencies referenced in this resolution.
government
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:1
Joint Statement from Congressman Ron Paul and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform: “Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research”
government
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:3
Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.
government
Addressing Monetary Problems
22 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 23:7
This is not the case. Ultimately what we have to have is monetary reform, currency reform. We have to have a time when once again we have money that cannot be created out of thin air. We have to have money of value, something that governments and politicians cannot create out of thin air. Unless we address that, we are going to continue with these problems.
government
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:5
* In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” (and the impending request for fast track authority) fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
government
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:14
Economists have known for centuries that free trade can be promoted without free-trade agreements. A country’s inhabitants would obtain many of the advantages of free trade if only their own government would stop imposing restrictions on imports. Behind the veil of financial transactions, products are ultimately exchanged against products, so that the more imports that come into a country, the more will foreign demand grow for its exports. Or else, foreign exporters will have to invest in the country, thereby creating a trade deficit; nothing wrong with that either.
government
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:17
William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the Financial Post that the demonstrators who don’t trust governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily, from political constituencies generally known for their blind faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists, they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults, actually increase state power.
government
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:18
On one stretch of Saturday’s march, demonstrators wore large bar codes taped to their mouths, as if free trade meant turning them into speechless numbers. How droll! These demonstrators were certainly, and perhaps proudly, carrying in their wallets government-imposed Social Security numbers, drivers’ licenses and Medicare cards, which, surely, have made them numbered state cattle. Another fabulous irony: American would-be demonstrators complained about being denied entry into Canada, while their entire message is predicated on tighter borders.
government
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:3
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It’s a risky, inconsistent policy.
government
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:15
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.
government
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the attached article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, as I believe it accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite effect.
government
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 26:3
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Amid heightened tension between the U.S. and China over the downing of an American spy plane, frustration is mounting inside President Kim Dae Jung’s government that President Bush’s Asia policies are undercutting ties between North and South Korea.
government
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 26:5
Fueling this unease among some in Mr. Kim’s government is their belief that the Bush administration views peace on the Korean Peninsula as working against its principal security interests. Central to this is Mr. Bush’s plans to build a national missiledefense shield, for which North Korea’s missile program is a primary justification. U.S. military and intelligence officials have played up in recent weeks both the military and nuclear threats posed by North Korea’s military, re-emphasizing the Pentagon’s need to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea.
government
U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 26:10
Kim Dae Jung’s government followed up by scheduling a March summit with Mr. Bush in Washington in hopes of picking up where Mr. Clinton left off. Instead Mr. Bush voiced “skepticism” toward Kim Jong II’s intentions and placed all talks with North Korea on hold pending the Clinton-policy review.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 27:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 27:2
* It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 27:3
* These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!
government
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 28:5
Why do so many people feel disgruntled? This writer has always advocated a volunteer military recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these reasons totally incomprehensible.
government
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 28:13
As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the military simply means loafing around, then such service may be worth less than NT$10,000 a month. But there should be no such “profession.” If being a soldier is a high-risk profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government, but it must be remembered that only people who can freely enter various professions on the job market can maximize their value.
government
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
April 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 28:14
Unless we believe that the average productivity of conscription-age males is worth less than NT$10,000 or so per month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth without conscription than the government coffers have to lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those conscription-aged men who would be working in society instead.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:8
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
government
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, almost on a daily basis, government officials reassure us there is no inflation to worry about. But, today’s definition of inflation of rising prices as measured by an artificial CPI and PPI is seriously flawed. Rising prices are but one of the many consequences of true inflation — which is an increase in the supply of money and credit.
government
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 30:3
But rising prices, a reflection of monetary inflation, should not be dismissed as so many government economists have done. The current first quarter GDP report shows a 3.3% rise in the personal consumption price index, well above the 1.9% recorded in last year’s fourth quarter.
government
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 30:10
But this is an expected consequence of monetary debasement, which generally leads to social unrest. But, blaming capitalism and freedom for the harm done by inflationism, special interest corporatism, and interventionism presents a danger to us all, since the case for commodity money and individual liberty is lost in the shouting. Unless this message is heard and distinguished from the current system, freedom and prosperity will be lost. Leaders of the current worldwide system that has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet empire pay lip service to free trade and free markets, but tragically they are moving us toward a fascist system of partnerships with government, big businesss, and international banking at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
government
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 31:7
The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.
government
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
May 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 31:8
Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting.
government
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.
government
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”
government
International Criminal Court
10 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:3
Because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem. In order to protect the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate identity crimes, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:4
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:5
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:6
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:7
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:8
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:9
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? !
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 37:12
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing would lead to serious Congressional action to end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing Hr 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.
government
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 38:9
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:1
Thank you for your interest in revising the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) medical privacy regulations. I respectfully urge HHS to revise those sections of the bill that reduce medical privacy by allowing the government increased access to medical records.
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:2
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:3
HHS should ensure that the regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment by requiring that law enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:4
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:8
Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America!
government
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 39:9
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.
government
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:2
But I do question a few things. First, I question whether this is a proper function for our government. I raised this question in the committee, suggesting that it could not be for national security reasons, and it more or less was conceded this has nothing to do with national security but it had to do with America’s soul. I was fascinated that we are in the business of saving souls these days.
government
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:8
Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18 which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the “necessary and proper” clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws “necessary and proper” to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such “foregoing” authority is cited by the advocates of this bill.
government
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:9
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says “compel . . . good faith peace”] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.
government
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:14
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill truly has it all — an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts?
government
Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 41:3
For one thing, cracking down more on foreign oil companies that are doing business in Sudan will not necessarily prohibit the benefits that may flow to the American oil companies if there is a change in government. We should not ignore that. We go to war over oil. We went to war over oil in the Persian Gulf, and certainly we had oil as an influence to send in many dollars and much equipment down into Colombia.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article “Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription” by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro’s Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:6
This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted “living Constitution” makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:8
Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:9
Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:10
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:11
It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:15
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them. AMERICORPS
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:16
There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:17
Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called “Social Security,” he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft.
government
Conscription Policies
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 42:18
As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government’s powers, the Selective Service System/ AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, “The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative” by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:5
* Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:8
The faith-based initiative is our latest proof that politicians are great entrepreneurs in finding ways to expand the scope of government, their own power and control over our lives. This particular initiative should be of concern to all because, in the best scenario, it will only waste money. In the worst case, however, it will be destructive to our nation.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:9
Although for President Bush this initiative is a crusade to reach minorities, welfare programs have already done enough damage in black America. Government dependency has created an environment in which black illegitimacy rates have soared seventy percent. This time the victim of government intervention will be the black church.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:13
When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:14
It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:15
Our goal should be to eliminate government from those aspects of our society that have been politicized: not to politicize the very faith and freedom that have made our country great. The very idea of welfare is the antithesis of both faith and freedom.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:16
A true faith-based initiative is one defined by freedom and not one defined by politics. Humankind already has a tragic history of incidents where governments and politicians have gotten into the business of defining faith and religion.
government
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 43:17
I respect our President, but he is dead wrong on this one. We still have billions of unused dollars in our welfare budgets. Let us return these funds to our citizens and exercise true faith that they will make the right decisions regarding charitable giving. Let us remember the simple wisdom of Ronald Reagan that government is the problem, not the solution.
government
Resolution Condemning The Taliban
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 44:4
I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do.
government
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:7
* In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Foods are not Drugs Act.
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues’ attention to the attached article “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” by John Berlau of Insight magazine, which outlines the latest example of government spying on innocent citizens. Mr. Berlau deals with the Post Office’s “Under the Eagle’s Eye” program which the Post Office implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act. Under this program, postal employees must report purchases of money orders of over $3,000 to federal law enforcement officials. The program also requires postal clerks to report any “suspicious behavior” by someone purchasing a money order. Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for reporting “suspicious behavior” are so broad that anyone whose actions appear to a postal employee to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary could become the subject of a “suspicious activity report,” and a federal investigation!
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:4
This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office’s regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these “Know Your Customer” type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau’s article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying “Eagle Eye” of the Federal Government. POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU (By John Berlau)
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:6
Remember “Know Your Customer”? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer’s “normal and expected transactions” and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a “suspicious activity.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition.
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:7
But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a “suspicious” customer. It doesn’t matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video obtained by Insight, is: “It’s better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal ID transaction get by.”
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:11
The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of “Know Your Customer,” this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. “The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers’ privacy,” Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. “This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government’s business. I had thought the postal-service’s eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, ‘We’re watching you!’ ”
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:14
Gillum and Gibson are proud that the postal service received a letter of commendation from then-attorney general Janet Reno in 2000 for this program. The database system the postal service developed with Information Builders, an information-technology consulting firm, received an award from Government Computer News in 2000 and was a finalist in the government/nonprofit category for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program. An Information Builders press release touts the system as “a standard for Bank Secrecy Act compliance and antimoney- laundering controls.”
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:24
One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105–A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driver’s license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105–B, the “suspicious-activity” report. “Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105–A form to one that doesn’t should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form,” the training manual says.
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:30
Observers say problems with “Under the Eagle’s Eye” underscore the contradiction that despite the fact that the postal service advertises like a private business and largely is self-supporting, it still is a government agency with law-enforcement functions.
government
“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 47:31
Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking, money orders. “Being a government agency, we feel it’s our responsibility that we should set the tone,” he said. The Treasury Department “basically challenged us in the midnineties to step up to the plate as a government entity,” Gillum adds.
government
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
government
Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.
government
INTRODUCTION OF EDUCATION BILLS -- HON. RON PAUL
June 28, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 49:2
* Mr. Speaker, reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools. This is not just because expanding the HOPE Scholarship bill will increase the funds devoted to education but because, to use a popular buzz word, individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education, or for students performance on a test that may measure little more than test-taking skills or the ability of education bureaucrats to design or score the test so that “no child is left behind,” regardless of the child’s actual knowledge. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction into fulfilling bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The only way to change this system is to restore control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools meet their demands that children be provided a quality education.
government
Re-Importation of Pharmaceuticals
11 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices they should support this amendment.
government
Re-Importation of Pharmaceuticals
11 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 50:2
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice?
government
REIMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS -- HON. RON PAUL
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 51:2
* I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I supported these amendments. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect low-income senior citizens because many seniors have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and lower than average income. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market, such as those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should have supported these amendments.
government
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:3
The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.
government
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:6
Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague.
government
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:14
Ironically, the mess in which we’ve been engaged in Yugoslavia has the international establishment supporting the side of Kosovo independence rather than Serbian sovereignty. The principle of independence and secession of smaller government entities has been enhanced by the breakdown of the Soviet system. If there’s any hope that any good could come of the quagmire into which we’ve rapidly sunk in the Balkans, it is that small independent nations are a viable and reasonable option to conflicts around the world. But the tragedy today is that no government is allowed to exist without the blessing of the One World Government leaders. The disobedience to the one worlders and true independence is not to be tolerated. That’s what this trial is all about. “Tow the line or else,” is the message that is being sent to the world.
government
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:9
Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous.
government
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.
government
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:17
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
government
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:18
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin — were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
government
Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 53:21
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.
government
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 54:2
The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.
government
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 54:3
The attention generated by Mr Schulz and his organization shows that many Americans are fed up with the tax system. It’s an outrage that most tax professionals, much less typical taxpayers, cannot understand the incredibly complex tax code. It’s an outrage that so many have had their lives destroyed by the IRS. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government. Congress needs to address the tax mess legislatively, by drastically simplifying and drastically reducing taxes. My own legislation would repeal the 16th Amendment and put an end to individual income taxes.
government
Prosecuting Milosevic
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 55:5
There is an alternative to a single world government, and that is individual governments willing to get along; open and free trade as much as possible, free travel, people having a unified free market currency where we do not have currency devaluations and poverty throughout the world. There is a lot that can be done with freedom, rather than always depending, whether it is here in the United States or at the international level, on more government.
government
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:5
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.
government
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:7
It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians.
government
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.
government
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 58:7
Whereas, Sections aimed at monied corporate domination together with protection of the rights of the individual and others mandating strong restrictions upon the mission of state government in general and upon the role of specific state officials grew out of the Jacksonian agrarianism and frontier philosophy that first infused the thinking of many Texans during the mid-1800’s; and
government
Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 58:8
Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and
government
Tribute To Tom Phillips And William Rusher
19 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, August 4th Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) will hold its National Convention in Newport Beach, California. At this event the organization will honor two fine people. Mr. Tom Phillips, Chairman of Phillips International, will receive the organization’s highest award, the Guardian of Freedom. Mr. Phillips has been a strong supporter of YAF and is involved in various other entities engaged in the fight for liberty. As publisher of “Human Events,” he has helped to further a publication steeped in the tradition of freedom. Mr. Phillips has also shown a particular interest in the kind of private preservation activities I so frequently advocate. Rather than leave it to the taxpayers to fund and the federal government to manage, Mr. Phillips has personally helped to fund the preservation of President Reagan’s Ranch by the Young America’s Foundation so that it might be used as a training ground for young people dedicated to the individual liberty which President Reagan spoke of so often.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:3
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in “faith-based’ programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:4
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear “reasonable” during the program’s first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:5
Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government’s stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:6
We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:7
Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:11
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”
government
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:13
Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy.
government
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.
government
Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 62:10
If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S. Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good deal for them?
government
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:3
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at “persons” engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.
government
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:4
Mr. Speaker, I support those portions of this bill designated to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:6
* I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents?
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:7
* Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be “fixed” by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records.
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:8
* This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen.
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:9
* The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:10
* Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to “simplify” and “streamline” the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs.
government
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:11
* Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.
government
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 66:5
* I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
government
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 66:9
* The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.
government
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 67:4
* Bastiat understood well what few in Congress have come to grasp--that it is absurd to favor producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. This is because producers and sellers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. As a consequence, when government policies favor producers, the citizens of the United States are faced with scarcity and unnecessarily high prices. In essence, the economic pie is made smaller for all.
government
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 67:19
Obvious? Sure, but we fall for a version of the broken-window fallacy every time we evaluate the impact of a government program without considering what taxpayers would have done with the money instead. Some people even judge monetary policy by what happens, without considering what might have happened.
government
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 67:21
Bastiat called attention to the absurdities that come from favoring producers over consumers and sellers over buyers. Producers benefit from scarcity and high prices while consumers benefit from abundance and low prices. Government policies favoring producers, therefore, tend to favor scarcity over abundance. They shrink the pie.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:6
Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:8
There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:18
How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:19
For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:21
If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning?
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:22
The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:26
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.
government
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 68:27
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research.
government
Crazy For Kazakhstan
1 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 69:9
Since that time, Central Asia has become an increasingly complex region. Russia is reemerging from its post-Soviet economic crises and is actively looking for both economic opportunities in Central Asia as well as to secure its political influence over the region. China is rapidly expanding its economic power and political influence in the region. Iran, despite recent progress made by moderate elements in the government, is still a state sponsor of terrorism and is actively working to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many of the other former Soviet republics have become havens for religious extremists, terrorists, drug cartels and transit points for smugglers of all kind.
government
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 70:6
* Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
government
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 72:4
* The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the federal government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
government
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 72:9
* However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights
August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 73:5
I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:4
The fundamental economic principle is that true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. This principle applies equally to health care as it does to other goods and services. However, over the past fifty years, Congress has systematically destroyed the market in health care. HMOs themselves are the result of conscious government policy aimed at correcting distortions in the health care market caused by Congress. The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:5
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:7
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion of organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor to much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:10
Disregard for constitutional limitations on government, ignorance of the basic principles of economics combined with the power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed-care monster. If we pursue a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will not be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actually is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:11
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:13
Of course, the real power over health care will lie with the unelected bureaucrats who will implement and interpret these broad and vague mandates. Federal bureaucrats already have too much power over health care. Today, physicians struggle with over 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations. To put that in perspective, I ask my colleagues to consider that the IRS code is “mere” 17,000 pages. Many physicians pay attorneys as much as $7,000 for a compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms, a wise investment considering even an innocent mistake can result in fines of up to $25,000. In case doctors are not terrorized enough by the federal bureaucracy, HCFA has requested authority to carry guns on their audits!
government
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).
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:17
Congress should also remove all federallyimposed 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!
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:19
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many.
government
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:5
The people of the United States, including the US Congress, are far too complacent about the seriousness of the current economic crisis. They remain oblivious to the significance of the US dollar’s fiat status. Discussions about the dollar are usually limited to the question of whether the dollar is now too strong or too weak. When money is defined as a precise weight of a precious metal, this type of discussion doesn’t exist. The only thing that matters under that circumstance is whether an honest government will maintain convertibility.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:16
Globalism has existed ever since international trade started thousands of years ago. Whether it was during the Byzantine Empire or the more recent British Empire, it worked rather well when the goal was honest trade and the currency was gold. Today, however, world government is the goal. Its tools are fiat money and international agencies that believe they can plan globally, just as many others over the centuries believed they could plan domestically, ignoring the fact that all efforts at socialism have failed.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:18
Fiat money has been around for a long time off and on throughout history. But never has the world been so enthralled with the world economy being artificially structured with paper money and with a total rejection of the anchor that gold provided for thousands of years. Let there be no doubt, we live in unprecedented times, and we are just beginning to reap what has been sown the past thirty years. Our government and Federal Reserve officials have grossly underestimated this danger.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:19
Current concerns are expressed by worries about meeting the criteria for a government-declared recession and whether a weaker dollar would help. The first is merely academic, because if you are one of the many thousands who have been laid off, you’re already in a recession. The second doesn’t make a lot of sense unless one asks “compared to what?” The dollar has been on a steady course of devaluation for thirty years, against most major currencies and against gold. Its purchasing power in general has been steadily eroded. The fact that the dollar has been strong against third-world currencies and against most major currencies for the past decade doesn’t cancel out the fact that the Federal Reserve has systematically eroded the dollar’s value by steadily expanding the money supply. Recent reports of a weakening dollar on international exchange markets have investment implications but do not reflect a new policy designed to weaken the dollar. This is merely the market adjusting to thirty years of systematic monetary inflation.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:22
The next recession, from which I’m sure we’re already suffering, will be even more pervasive worldwide than the one in the 1930s due to the artificial nature of modern globalism, with world paper money and international agencies deeply involved in the economy of every nation. We have witnessed the current and recent bailouts in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and the Far East. While resisting the market’s tendency for correction, faith in government deficits and belief in paper money inflation will surely prolong the coming worldwide crisis.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:32
A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury’s and the Fed’s attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:36
Our dollar problem, which affects our financial and budgetary decisions, originated at the Fed with our country’s acceptance of paper money thirty years ago. Federal Reserve officials and other government leaders purposely continue to mislead the people by spouting the nonsense that there is no evidence of inflation, as measured by government-rigged price indices. Even though significant price increases need not exist for monetary inflation to place a hardship on the economy, stock prices, housing prices, costs of medical care and education, and the cost of government have all been rising at very rapid rates. But the true inflation, measured by the money supply, is rising at a rate of greater than 20%, as measured by MZM. This fact is ignored.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:42
Even the serious economic problems generated by a flawed monetary system could be tolerated, except for the inevitable loss of personal liberty that accompanies government’s efforts to centrally plan the economy through a paper monetary policy and ever-growing welfare state.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:44
If, heaven forbid, the economy sinks as low and for as long as many free market economists believe, what policy changes must we consider? Certainly the number one change ought to be to reject the ideas that created the crisis. But rejecting old ways that Congress and the people are addicted to is not easy. Many people believe that government programs are free. The clamor for low interest rates, (more monetary inflation) by virtually all public officials and prominent business and banking leaders is endless. And, the expectation for government to do something for every economic malady-even if ill-advised government policy has created the problem-drives this seductive system of centralized planning that ultimately undermines prosperity. A realization that we cannot continue our old ways may well be upon us, and, the inflating, taxing, regulating, and centralized planning programs of the last thirty years must come to an end.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.
government
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:50
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure.
government
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001 2001 Ron Paul 77:11
Röpke, wrote before the 1946 Employment Act, which directed the United States government to cut recessions short — using tax breaks, for example, or cuts in interest rates — even if these actions stymie a salutary process of economic adjustment. No one doubts the humanity of this law. Yet equally, no one can doubt the inhumanity of a decade-long string a palliatives in Japan, intended to insulate the Japanese people from the consequences of their bubble economy of the 1980’s. Rather than suppressing the bust, the government has only managed to prolong it, for a decade and counting.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:22
Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab countries is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region than they want. There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long lasting Middle East conflict add to the distrust and hatred of America.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:27
The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. But, remember, important industries like as our chemical plants and refineries do not depend on government agencies for security. They build fences and hire guards with guns. The airlines have not been allowed to do the same thing. There was a time when airline pilots were allowed and did carry weapons, and yet this has been prohibited by government regulation set to go into effect in November.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:28
If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:37
Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned the motives.
government
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:38
The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone’s personal liberty. This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other information obtained with probable cause and a warrant.
government
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:4
The principle of private property ownership did not work to prevent the tragedies of September 11th, and there’s a reason for that. The cries have gone out that due to the failure of the airlines to protect us, we must nationalize every aspect of aviation security. This reflects a serious error in judgment, and will lead us further away from the principle of property ownership and toward increasing government dependency and control, with further sacrifice of our freedoms. More dollars and more federal control over the airline industry are not likely to give us the security we all seek.
government
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:6
The problem was that the principle of private property was already undermined for the airlines by the partial federalization of security by FAA regulations. Airports are all owned by various government entities.
government
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:7
The system that failed us prior to September 11th not only was strictly controlled by government regulations, it specifically denied the right of owners to defend their property with a gun. At one time guns were permitted on airlines to protect the US mail, but for more than 40 years airlines have not been allowed to protect human life with firearms.
government
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security
October 9, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 82:8
Some argue that pilots have enough to do worrying about flying the airplane and have no time to be concerned about a gun. Yet why do we allow drivers of armored vehicles to handle both? Why do we permit more protection for money being hauled around the country in a truck than we do for passengers on an airline? If government management of airline security has already failed us, why should we expect expanding the role of government in this area to be successful? One thing is for sure, we can expect it to get very expensive and the lines to get a lot longer. The government’s idea of security is asking, “Who packed your bag,” or “Has the bag been with you since you packed it?” and requiring plastic knives to be used on all flights while taking fingernail clippers from the pilots.
government
Safe Act
9 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act makes commonsense changes to federal law that will enhance the government’s ability to prevent terrorist incidents. Unlike other proposals, my legislation in no way threatens the constitutional liberties of the American people. In fact, the only people threatened under the SAFE Act are terrorists.
government
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 84:4
* Since the bombing there has been much discussion of how to respond to warlike acts carried out by private parties. The drafters of the Constitution also had to wrestle with the problem of how to respond to sporadic attacks on American soil and citizens organized by groups not formally affiliated with a government. In order to deal with this situation, the Constitution authorized Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In the early days of the Republic, marque and reprisal were usually used against pirates who, while they may have enjoyed the protection and partnership of governments, where not official representatives of a government.
government
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 84:5
* Although modern America does not face the threat of piracy on the high seas, we do face the threat of international terrorism, Terrorism has much in common with the piracy of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups operating to assault the United States government as well as threaten the lives, liberty and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through terroristic violence.
government
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.
government
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 86:4
HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by authorizing warrantless searches of all mail coming into or leaving the country. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.
government
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation’s citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti-terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:2
There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counter-terrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:3
Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:4
However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people’s constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government’s power.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:5
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:6
I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government’s ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as “asset forfeiture.”
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:8
H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment’s requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:11
Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions “sunsetting” some of the government’s new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for “unauthorized” disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for “sunsetting,” I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government’s ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American’s constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:12
As Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureaucracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:13
H.R. 3108 may actually reduce security as private cities may not take necessary measures to protect their safety because “the government is taking care of our security.” In a free market, private owners have great incentives to protect their private property and the lives of their customers. That is why industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of anyone’s civil liberties. In a free society private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to “profile” if it enhances security.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:14
The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures.
government
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 87:15
In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government’s powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common-sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.
government
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.
government
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.
government
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 89:2
Secretary Powell has stated that “our fight does not end with the al-Qaida and the Taliban regime,” going on to quote President Bush, that “our war begins with the al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order. Does this Administration really mean to undertake eradicating terrorism from every nation before we can declare victory? Every war must have an exit-strategy, a point where victory can be declared and our troops can be brought home. I fear that the objectives as defined are sufficiently vague as to prevent us from doing so in the foreseeable future. In fact, the secretary’s statement suggests that once our immediate objectives -- ridding the world of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban government- are met, we intend to actually widen the war.
government
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell
October 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 89:4
I am also concerned about the emerging nation-building component of our activities in Afghanistan. If, as it appears, our military action in Afghanistan is to benefit the Northern Alliance opposition group, what assurances do we have that this group will not be every bit as unpopular as the Taliban, as press reporting suggests? Not long ago, it was the Taliban itself that was the recipient of U.S. military and financial support. Who is to say that Afghanistan might not benefit from a government managed by several tribal factions with a weak central government and little outside interference either by the U. S. or the UN? Some have suggested that a western-financed pipeline through Afghanistan can only take place with a strong and “stable” government in place- and that it is up to the U.S. government to ensure the success of what is in fact a private financial venture. Whatever the case, my colleagues in Congress and those in the administration openly talk of a years-long post-war UN presence in Afghanistan to “build institutions.”
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:4
Those who are so anxious to condemn do not realize that the policies of the American Government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the Government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the Government holds a monopoly on defining.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:8
Another reason the hearts of many Americans are heavy with grief is because they dread what might come from the many new and broad powers the Government is demanding in the name of providing security. Daniel Webster once warned, “Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety.”
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:9
A strong case can be made that the Government regulations, along with a lack of private property responsibility, contributed to this tragedy, but what is proposed? More regulations and even a takeover of all airport security by the Government.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:12
Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today’s tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American?
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:14
And a lot more will be appropriated before it is all over. What about the 40,000 deaths per year on government-run highways and the needless deaths associated with the foolish and misdirected war on drugs? Why should anyone be criticized for trying to put this in proper perspective?
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:19
There are many other reasons to be sad about all that is going on today. In spite of the fact that our government has done such a poor job protecting us and has no intention of changing the policy of meddling overseas (which has contributed to our problems), the people are more dependent on and more satisfied with government than they have been in decades- while demanding even more government control and intrusion in their daily lives.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:20
It is aggravating to listen to the daily rhetoric regarding liberty and the Constitution while the same people participate in their destruction. It is aggravating to see all the money spent and civil liberties abused while the pilot’s right to carry guns in self-defense is denied. It is even more aggravating to see our government rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to provide security to U.S. territory. A $325 billion military budget, and we cannot even patrol our own shores. This, of course, is just another sign of how little we are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and how willing we are to submit to international government.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:22
We already hear of plans to install and guarantee the next government of Afghanistan. Getting bin Laden and his gang is one thing, nation-building is quite another. Some of our trouble in the Middle East started years ago when our CIA put the Shah in charge of Iran.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:24
Our support for the less-than-ethical government of Saudi Arabia, with our troops occupying what most Muslims consider sacred land, is hardly the way to bring peace to the Middle East. A policy driven by our fear of losing control over the oil fields in the Middle East has not contributed to American Security. Too many powerful special interests drive our policy in this region, and this does little to help us preserve security for Americans here at home.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:25
As we bomb Afghanistan, we continue to send foreign aid to feed the people suffering from the war. I strongly doubt if our food will get them to love us or even be our friends. There is no evidence that the starving receive the food. And too often it is revealed that it ends up in the hands of the military forces we are fighting. While we bomb Afghanistan and feed the victims, we lay plans to install the next government and pay for rebuilding the country. Quite possibly, the new faction we support will be no more trustworthy than the Taliban, to which we sent plenty of aid and weapons in the 1980s. That intervention in Afghanistan did not do much to win reliable friends in the region.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:26
It just may be that Afghanistan would be best managed by several tribal factions, without any strong centralized government and without any outside influence, certainly not by the U.N. But then again, some claim that the proposed Western financed pipeline through northern Afghanistan can only happen after a strong centralized pro-Western government is put in place.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:31
Changing our current foreign policy with wise diplomacy is crucial if we are to really win the war and restore the sense of tranquility to our land that now seems to be so far in our distant past. Our widespread efforts at peacekeeping and nation-building will only contribute to the resentment that drives the fanatics. Devotion to internationalism and a one-world government only exacerbates regional rivalries. Denying that our economic interests drive so much of what the West does against the East impedes any efforts to diffuse the world crisis that already has a number of Americans demanding nuclear bombs to be used to achieve victory. A victory based on this type of aggressive policy would be a hollow victory indeed.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:36
Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:39
This war has been behind most big government police powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS’s efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence.
government
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:40
The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our drug eradication project (using spraying) around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.
government
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:4
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.
government
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:7
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!
government
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:8
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.
government
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 91:9
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
government
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world’s politicians, special interests, government bureaucrats, and financiers all love fiat money because they all benefit from it. But freedom-loving, hardworking, ethical and thrifty individuals suffer.
government
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:2
Fiat money is paper money that gets its value from a government edict and compulsory legal tender laws. Honest money, something of real value, like a precious metal, gets its value from the market and through voluntary exchange. The world today is awash in fiat money like never before, and we face a financial crisis like never before, conceived many decades before the 9–11 crisis hit.
government
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:4
Japan, failing to understand this, has tried for more than a decade to stimulate her economy and boost her stock market by printing money and increasing government spending, and it has not worked. Argentina, even with the hopes placed in its currency board, is nevertheless facing default on its foreign debt and a crisis in confidence. More bailouts from the IMF and U.S. dollar may temper the crisis for a while, but ultimately it will only hurt the dollar and the U.S. taxpayers.
government
Airport Security Federalization Act
1 November 2001 2001 Ron Paul 93:2
I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies.
government
Airport Security Federalization Act
1 November 2001 2001 Ron Paul 93:3
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry.
government
Statement on Air Safety Legislation
November 1, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 94:3
Mr. Speaker, the House bill, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion dollars, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion dollars in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion dollars worth of subsidies to the airline industry.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:8
Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is very popular. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for our country.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:10
We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware of.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:14
Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history’s great ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:15
With this victory, however, NATO’s raison d’etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this “new” NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with “economic, social and political difficulties ..... ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.” The new name of the NATO game was “interventionism”; defense was now passé.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
November 7, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 95:17
Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs.
government
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:3
Because of the congressionally-mandated abuse of the Social Security number, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. As supportive as I am of efforts to ensure that the Social Security Administration minimizes the risk of identity theft, the only way to ensure the federal government is not inadvertently assisting identity criminals is to stop using the Social Security number as a uniform ID. I have introduced legislation to address the American people’s concerns regarding the transformation of the Social Security number into a national ID, the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.
government
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:5
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?
government
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:7
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue, and for your efforts to take steps to protect the American people from government-facilitated identity theft. However, I would ask my colleagues to remember that efforts to protect the American people from identity crimes will not be effective until Congress addresses the root cause of the problem: the transformation of the Social Security number into a national identifier.
government
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing examining the question of whether national ID cards would enhance security. Protecting the security of the American people from foreign threats is the most important responsibility of the federal government, and there is much the government needs to do in this area. Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Moreover, private property owners certainly can take steps to protect their property from terrorists and other criminals. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for airlines to issue private ID cards to passengers and perform background checks as a condition of selling them a ticket.
government
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Congress should reject proposals which provide only the illusion of security, while in reality simply eroding constitutional government and individual liberty. Perhaps the most onerous example of a proposal that creates the illusion of security (yet really promotes servitude) is the plan to force all Americans to carry a national ID card. A uniform national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it inevitably uses that power in harmful ways.
government
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 97:4
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). As we consider how best to enhance the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of the people, it is more important then ever that Congress remain mindful of the constitutional limitations on its power.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:2
The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the “mob”or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban’s rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:8
It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to “nation build” in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don’t even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban “target” remains suspect by many.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:17
It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops. It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:26
It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were “our” oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:28
It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don’t we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:36
As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan’s support, although it continually wavers, in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then some- even before the bombing has stopped.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:37
Rumsfeld’s plan, as reported in Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey’s support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:42
If a corrupt city or state government does business with a drug cartel or organized crime and violence results, we don’t bomb city hall or the state capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples?
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:48
Even before the passage of the recent draconian legislation, hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion, and millions of dollars of al Qaeda funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with uncooperative foreign entities like the Saudi government, which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who financed the terrorists’ operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:51
We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government’s policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:52
Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to presidential documents from previous administrations, now a “need to know” has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft’s position is that presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy while ignoring the 4 th Amendment protections of the people’s privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming he must “protect”the privacy of the individuals who might be involved — a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:53
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:54
The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a long-time tradition in this country. One person or one branch of government should never control military operations. Our system of government has always required a shared-power arrangement.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:55
The Anti-Terrorism Bill did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined the liberties of all Americans.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:56
“Know Your Customer” type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but also all businesses will be required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with the total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S. government. Financial services consultants are convinced that this new regulation will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is that the regulations have been sought after by federal law-enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American people.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:60
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:62
The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:63
In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:72
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice system, it’s intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:76
The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now it’s argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors.
government
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:83
I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.
government
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that HR 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.
government
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:3
The drafters of HR 3210 claim that this creates a temporary government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks? Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be temporary.
government
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:5
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. HR 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks!
government
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:6
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government’s control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally-funded insurance are avoided.
government
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 99:7
The version of HR 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, HR 3210 instructs the Treasury department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:2
Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today’s terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.
government
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.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:9
Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called “privateers,” played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists’ cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:10
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:15
If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative — private ships of war.
government
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 100:16
In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and “every terrorist group with a global reach.” The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.
government
Ongoing Violence in Israel and Palestine
December 5, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 102:20
Further, it recommends that the President suspend all relations with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority if they do not abide by the demands of this piece of legislation. I don’t think this is a very helpful approach to the problem. Ceasing relations with one side in the conflict is, in effect, picking sides in the conflict. I don’t think that has been our policy, nor is it in our best interest, be it in the Middle East, Central Asia, or anywhere else. The people of the United States contribute a substantial amount of money to both Israel and to the Palestinian people. We have made it clear in our policy and with our financial assistance that we are not taking sides in the conflict, but rather seeking a lasting peace in the region. Even with the recent, terrible attack. I don’t think this is the time for Congress to attempt to subvert our government’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
government
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so-called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that’s why it’s called “free”- it’s free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ”free-trade agreement“ is an oxymoron. We don’t need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy.
government
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.
government
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.
government
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally- taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB’s, that stifle economic growth.
government
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 104:9
Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again.
government
H.R. 3054
16 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 106:3
Instead of abusing the taxing and spending power, I urge my colleagues to undertake to raise the money for these medals among ourselves. I would gladly donate to a Congressional Gold Medal fund whose proceeds would be used to purchase and award gold medals to those selected by Congress for this honor. Congress should also reduce the federal tax burdened on the families of those who lost their lives helping their fellow citizens on September 11. Mr. Speaker, reducing the tax burden on these Americans would be a real sacrifice for many in Washington since any reduction in taxes represents a loss of real and potential power for the federal government.
government
H.R. 3054
16 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 106:5
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution — a Constitution which each Member of Congress swore to uphold. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation and respectfully suggest that perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from other people’s money. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money, but using our own funds to finance these gold medal is true to the sprit of the heros of September 11.
government
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 110:15
We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East.
government
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 111:6
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq’s government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East — many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.’ ”
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:2
I do not share the enthusiasm that they do about bringing such a bill to the floor. I certainly do not share the enthusiasm of passing such legislation, because it sets us backwards if our goal here is to defend liberty and minimize the size of government.
government
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.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:6
The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do nothing to preserve the Constitution.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:9
It is just as well that the economy was already in a recession for 6 months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise the temptation would have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the source of a significant economic downturn.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:11
One of the key responsibilities of the Federal Government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:14
It has been reported that since the 9– 11 attacks, Big Government answers have gained in popularity and people fearful for their security have looked to the Federal Government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at the highest level in decades. This may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:17
Our government’s ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes has indoctrinated us all, pilots, passengers and airline owners, to believe we should never resist hijackers. This sets up perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights just as they did on September 11.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:20
This attitude is healthy, practical, and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. Government. That, of course, is the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:23
The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War; yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year’s attacks made us feel vulnerable because it was clear that our Federal Government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault, and the anthrax scare certainly did not help to diminish that fear.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:24
Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government’s intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government’s threat to our liberty? The most significant and dangerous result of last year’s attacks has been the bold expansion of the Federal police state in our enhanced international role as the world’s policeman. Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I am convinced that the people’s support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:25
As time progresses, the full impact of homeland security and the unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments will become apparent, and a large majority of our Americans will appropriately ask why did the Congress do it. Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:27
Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the United States Government by claiming that those who talk of lost liberty serve to erode our national unity and give ammunition to America’s enemies and only aid terrorists. This dangerous assumption is, in the eyes of our top law enforcement officials, that perceived disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act of terrorism.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:29
Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming that if they are not with us, they are against us, which leaves no room for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with dozens of nations around the world.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:30
Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to the enemy? The Attorney General’s comments suggest just that, and it has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We are unable to guarantee protection for outside threats and may be approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our liberties.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:31
No matter how sincere and well motivated the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill-advised it will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that here in Washington there is little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials and all that they do.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:32
The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the U.N., is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We were not supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9–11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaeda members captured or killed is uncertain. Also, the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we will probably not know the details of what went on for years to come.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:34
Our sterile approach to the bombing with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of events of September 11. Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:39
Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America’s defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under U.N. authority, should be apparent to us all. Stuart Eizenstat, Under Secretary of Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Trade Committee October 13, 1997. He said, “One of five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region is to continue support for U.S. companies and the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry Central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based, multiethnic government.”
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:42
The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There is a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long term.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:48
Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia, a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution to this ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors’ oil fields.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:56
I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:60
There is no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The overcommitment of a country’s military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?
government
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:68
The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commitment ourselves endlessly to being the world’s policemen. If we do not reassess our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under very undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home. A constitutional policy and informed relations of nonintervention is the policy that will provide America the greatest and best national defense.
government
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools were singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.
government
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 2:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.
government
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.
government
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:3
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated economy, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.
government
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:4
The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluation: Fed expansion of money and credit.
government
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:5
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market- not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level of the markets.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:3
In fact, Mr. Chairman, Argentina does not represent an exception to the laws of economics. Rather, Argentina’s economic collapse is but one more example of the folly of government intervention in the economy done to benefit powerful special interests at the expense of the Argentine people and the American taxpayer. The primary means by which the federal government forces American taxpayers to underwrite the destruction of the Argentine economy is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which enjoys a $37 billion line of credit provided with U.S. Treasury funds.
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:4
Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:5
According to our colleague, Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:7
Even if they are not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:8
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and an economic crisis, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
government
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002 2002 Ron Paul 4:9
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF, and it is simply immoral to take money form hard-working Americas to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:3
A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used to suppress price inflation and to help the economy, without realizing the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy was greatly harmed. Legislation, per se, is not necessarily harmful, but if it reflects bad policy, it is. The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and represents a serious violation of people’s rights.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:4
Today, we hear from strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems and, over the past year, lowered short-term interest rates an unprecedented 11 times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6 1/2 % to 1 3/4 %. This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more government but less. It is precisely too much government, and especially manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve, that precipitated the economic downturn in the first place. Increasing that which caused the recession can’t possibly, at the same time, be the solution.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:6
The Japanese economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of recovery. The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they are growing, it is a benefit to all, but in a contraction, globalism based on fiat money and international government assures that most economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:7
Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of course, fails to address the reality of a record-high $7.5 trillion-and rising consumer debt. “Today, a party- tomorrow an economic hangover” has essentially been our philosophy for decades. But there’s always a limit to deficit spending, whether it’s private or governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in one form or another later on.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:15
There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the Congress could implement. All taxes ought to be lowered, government spending should be reduced, controls on labor costs should be removed, and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:17
Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and assuming the role of world policeman, while ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens. In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than Adam Smith recommended. The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:20
Instead of moving in that direction of freer markets, the more problems the western countries face, the more government programs are demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan as their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy increases. But in China and Russia, the horrible conditions that communism causes, ironically, made these two countries move toward freer markets when they encountered serious troubles. Even the central banks of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while western central banks are selling.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:22
But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in the market on principle or argue against it. There’s always the hope that government will be prudent and limit its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates several new problems in addition while prompting even more government intervention.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:24
This system leads to a huge bureaucratic government, manipulated by politicians, and generates an army of special interests that flood the system with money and demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these powerful special interests must be satisfied.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:25
This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They would regulate access to the members of Congress, and dictate how private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty, while ignoring the real problem- a government that ignores the Constitution naturally passes out largesse. Even under today’s conditions, where money talks in Washington, if enough members would refuse either to accept or be influenced by the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:27
Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfarism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It’s happened many times already, and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:29
Every recession in the last 30 years, since the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, debt and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each cycle, the government got bigger and more intrusive.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:30
Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This is not tolerated, because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes, more regulations and fewer freedoms. It’s tolerated because most people believe that their financial and economic security is the responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human face on capitalism. Extreme capitalism, i.e. freedom, we have been told is just as dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our system will continue in its inexorable march toward fascist-type socialism.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:37
Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably, would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous process of monetary debasement.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:39
Just recently, the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) announced in a national press release: “National debt can lead to a growing economy,” claiming government borrowing, “produces steady long-term growth, greater security, and a higher standard of living.”
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:40
This wouldn’t be so bad if it came from a typically Keynesian think tank. But this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives whose goal is to generate government revenues, painlessly of course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore personal liberty.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:41
What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing always takes money from productive enterprises, while placing these funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special interests. Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:42
Those who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are merely supporting a system of big government, whether it’s welfare or warfare, or both.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:43
Debt, per se, is not the only issue. It’s also because debt always encourages the growth in the size of government. Allowing it to be seductively financed through inflation or borrowing is what makes it so bad. Just because it’s less painful at first and payment is delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:44
If liberty is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The principle of authoritarian government is endorsed whenever deficits are legitimatised. All those who love liberty must reject the notion that deficits and debt perform a useful function.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:46
Since we’re moving toward the big correction, we’re going to see a lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds like Social Security and mean a lower standard living for most people. The routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses and medical care will never keep up with the needs or demands. Eventually we will have to give up, and a new economic system will have to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:47
Wealth- the product of labor, investment and savings- can never be substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first take away from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth; both can destroy it.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:61
7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:64
10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny by all levels of government in the name of providing security. Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist attack.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:66
12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests are motivated to increase their demands. It’s a convenient excuse to push for the benefits they were already looking for. Domestically, this includes everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, travel agents, state and local governments, and anyone who can justify a related need. It’s difficult for the military-industrial complex to hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more dependency, greater deficits and military confrontations that are unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks.
government
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:68
Optimism or Pessimism? Many realists who see the world as it really is and who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the tide against liberty. Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe next month or next year or at some later date, I’m convinced that, in time, the love for liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it’s recognized that government has no guarantee of future success, promoting dependency and security can quickly lose it allure.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent revelations regarding Enron’s political influence have once again brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who where involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of “good government” via campaign finance reform!
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:2
Mr. Speaker, this so-called “reform” legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:3
The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis : “At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws.”
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:5
This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people’s constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:7
Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government- legally or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
government
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.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:11
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process- which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:13
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending- a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:14
Mr. Speaker, the freedoms of the American people should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:15
The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ACampaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.”
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:16
I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:23
The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:26
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:28
II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:30
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:33
As for congressional elections, Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 60, that congressional authority was “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places , the manner of elections,” and did not, for example, extend to the qualifications of voters. Likewise, Joseph Story noted that congressional authority over federal elections was explicitly confined to regulations concerning the mechanics and integrity of the election process itself, and did not extend to the integrity of government generally or the relative power of voters. ( I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Section 826, 5th ed., 1891)
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:49
IV. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press At the heart of campaign-finance reform legislation, is the desire of Congress to eliminate even the “appearance of corruption” to the end that the people have confidence in the current system of representative government. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27, 1976) At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech so also do campaign-finance reform laws.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:50
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:51
Since Buckley, the proponents of ever more stringent limits upon campaign contributions have emphasized that such laws are needed not to prevent actual government corruption, but to eliminate all appearances of such corruption. Indeed, these proponents have contended that the elimination of the appearance of corruption is compelling because, if the appearance is allowed to remain, people will lose faith in our current system of government and their confidence in their elected leaders, such faith and confidence lying at the heart of a healthy democracy.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:53
What these advocates of campaign-finance reform really want is to protect incumbent office holders from the people. Under the guise of preserving the present governmental structure, they support campaign-finance reform measures that are nothing more than “incumbent-protection” legislation that would make entrenched politicians even less responsive to the people. (See e.g., James C. Miller, Monopoly Politics 88-101, Hoover Inst. 1999.)
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:54
Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:55
Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:56
Had the court applied the same standard to the Campaign Reform Act of 1971, that law, too, would have been cast into the dustbin of history. For, campaign-finance reform laws - like seditious libel laws - exist solely to protect the present government and her leaders from the people. While this goal may be permissible in England where the Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the nation, it has no place in America where, as James Madison put it in the 1800 Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the “people, not the government, possess absolute sovereignty.”
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:57
Campaign-finance reform also constitutes a direct attack on the First Amendment freedom of the press. By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign, as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign, these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government “censorial power over the people,” instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 275.)
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:58
Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:60
Campaign-finance reform, then, is not progressive, but reactive, turning the clock back to the days of the English Star Chamber that enforced the King’s rules governing the conduct of elections for the ostensible purpose of keeping his realm free of moral and political corruption. ( Sources of Our Liberties 130, 242, Perry, ed., American Bar Found., 1978) A free nation may only be preserved when the people have the liberty of the press to censor their own speech about the government and about candidates for governmental office, not when the government has censorship power of the people, as campaign-finance reform inevitably dictates.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:62
Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:65
Both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan exploit this distinction in their attempt to muzzle political advertisements in the final weeks of an election campaign, claiming that issue advocacy becomes express candidate advocacy when conducted during the crucial weeks before election day. In so doing, both bills seriously undermine the people’s right to choose for themselves how they will associate to advance or defeat certain measures or to promote specific principles of public policy. Constraining the people who speak out on the issues in conjunction with an election campaign may make for a more “orderly” political process, but people are not horses or mules to be hooked up to the political bandwagons of government-subsidized incumbent politicians. Additionally, limits on so-called “soft money” to political parties are really designed to place incumbent office holders in control of the political parties whose name they sport. By placing controls on how political parties may raise and spend money, “independent” politicians like John McCain seek to transmute America’s political parties into political eunuchs, impotent to affect the outcome of any election.
government
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:68
VI. Conclusion Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.
government
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.
government
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise .” [Emphasis added].
government
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:7
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.
government
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:8
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.
government
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:10
Obfuscation, secrecy, and accounting tricks appear to have catapulted the Houston-based trader of oil and gas to the top of the Fortune 100, only to be brought down by the same corporate chicanery. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts and the federal government’s top bean counters struggle to convince the nation that the Enron crash is an isolated case, not in the least reflective of how business is done in corporate America.
government
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 9:3
The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.
government
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 9:11
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.
government
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 9:12
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?
government
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:2
For example, Mr. Speaker, the IMF played a major role in creating the Argentine economic crisis. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!
government
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:3
According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”
government
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
government
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
government
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 10:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.
government
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements.
government
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
government
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!
government
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:4
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.
government
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:5
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdrawal the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by acting on my Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act (HR 3732), which requires Congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.
government
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:4
Pro-life groups in America have already expressed concern that the Court’s claimed jurisdiction over “enforced pregnancy” could make it criminal for groups to work to restrict access to abortions- or even reduce government funding of abortions. The pro-ICC Woman’s Caucus for Gender Justice has already stated that countries’ domestic laws may need to be changed to conform to ICC Statutes. Former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, Dr. Richard Wilkins, said recently that the ICC could eventually be used to try “the Pope and other religious leaders,” because issues such as abortion and homosexuality would ultimately fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.
government
Statement on the International Criminal Court
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 13:7
Indeed in the showcase trial of the ICTY, that of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte told the French paper Le Monde last year that no genocide charge had been brought against Milosevic for Kosovo “because there is no evidence for it.” What did the Court do in the face of this lack of evidence? They simply disregarded a basic principle of extradition law and announced that they would try Milosevic for crimes other than those for which he had been extradited. Thus they added two additional sets of charges- for Bosnia and Croatia- to the indictment for Kosovo. The Kosovo extradition itself was nothing more than bribery and kidnapping. Milosevic was snatched up off the streets of Serbia after the United States promised the government it had helped install millions of dollars in aid. That national sovereignty was to be completely disregarded by this international tribunal was evident in its ignoring a ruling by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court that extradition was illegal and unconstitutional. Yugoslav officials preferred to put Milosevic on trial in Yugoslavia, under the Yugoslav system of jurisprudence, for whatever crimes he may have committed in Yugoslavia. The internationalists completely ignored this legitimate right of a sovereign state.
government
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 14:4
At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States “to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . .” In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict.
government
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 14:6
As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to “protect democracy” and “stop drug trafficking” you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil. The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline- jointly owned by the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants American taxpayers to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of American citizens to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests?
government
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened by the administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs represent naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining free-market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. True free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of government interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.
government
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:5
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
government
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:6
Mr. Speaker, it’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.
government
Federal Penalties For Child Sexual Abuse
14 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 16:3
As I stated before, it certainly is a legitimate exercise of government power to impose a lifetime sentence on those guilty of multiple sex crimes against children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider the wisdom of Congress’ increased reliance on mandatory minimums. Over the past several years we have seen a number of cases with people sentenced to life, or other harsh sentences, that appear to offend basic principles of justice. Even judges in many of these cases admit that the sentences imposed are in no way just, but the judiciary’s hands are tied by the statutorily imposed mandatory minimums.
government
Federal Penalties For Child Sexual Abuse
14 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 16:4
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I believe this is a worthy piece of legislation, I hope someday we will debate whether expanding Federal crimes (along with the use of congressionally mandated mandatory minimum sentences) is consistent with constitutional government and fundamental principles of justice.
government
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:5
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “projectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and lowers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.
government
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:8
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!
government
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:9
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.
government
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002 2002 Ron Paul 17:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject S. 2019.
government
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 339, a bill by the United States Congress which seeks to tell a sovereign nation how to hold its own elections. It seems the height of arrogance for us to sit here and lecture the people and government of Ukraine on what they should do and should not do in their own election process. One would have thought after our own election debacle in November 2000, that we would have learned how counterproductive and hypocritical it is to lecture other democratic countries on their electoral processes. How would members of this body- or any American- react if countries like Ukraine demanded that our elections here in the United States conform to their criteria? So I think we can guess how Ukrainians feel about this piece of legislation.
government
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 18:3
Far from getting more involved in Ukraine’s electoral process, which is where this legislation leads us, the United States is already much too involved in the Ukrainian elections. The U.S. government has sent some $4.7 million dollars to Ukraine for monitoring and assistance programs, including to train their electoral commission members and domestic monitoring organizations. There have been numerous reports of U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations in Ukraine being involved in pushing one or another political party. This makes it look like the United States is taking sides in the Ukrainian elections.
government
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 18:5
Other aspects of this bill are likewise troubling. This bill seeks, from thousands of miles away and without any of the facts, to demand that the Ukrainian government solve crimes within Ukraine that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. No one knows what happened to journalist Heorhiy Gongadze or any of the alleged murdered Ukrainian journalists, yet by adding it into this ill-advised piece of legislation we are sitting here suggesting that the government has something to do with the alleged murders. This meddling into the Ukrainian judicial system is inappropriate and counter-productive.
government
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 18:6
Mr. Speaker, we are legislators in the United States Congress. We are not in Ukraine. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and no business telling them how to conduct their elections. A far better policy toward Ukraine would be to eliminate any U.S.-government imposed barrier to free trade between Americans and Ukrainians.
government
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:8
Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.
government
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:9
The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.
government
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:11
What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.
government
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America’s military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society.
government
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America’s founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.
government
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:7
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: “ Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government.”
government
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:3
Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations.
government
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:8
Is it any wonder that the grassroots people in Arab nations, even in Kuwait, threaten their own governments that are totally dominated by American power and money?
government
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:13
Current policy prompts our government on one day to give the go-ahead to Sharon to do what he needs to do to combat terrorism (a term that now has little or no meaning); on the next day, however, our government tells him to quit, for fear that we may overly aggravate our oil pals in the Arab nations and jeopardize our oil supplies. This is an impossible policy that will inevitably lead to chaos.
government
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2002
April 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 22:2
This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that President Bush should formally rescind the signature approving the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States, and should take necessary steps to prevent the establishment of that Court. It also prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to state autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
government
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 476.
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, seldom in history have supporters of increased state power failed to take advantage of a real or perceived crisis to increase government interference in our economic and/or personal lives. Therefore we should not be surprised that the events surrounding the Enron bankruptcy are being used to justify the expansion of Federal regulatory power contained in H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA).
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:2
So ingrained is the idea that new Federal regulations will prevent future Enrons, that today’s debate will largely be between CARTA’s supporters and those who believe this bill does not provide enough Federal regulation and control. I would like to suggest that before Congress imposes new regulations on the accounting profession, perhaps we should consider whether the problems the regulations are designed to address were at least in part caused by prior government interventions into the market. Perhaps Congress could even consider the almost heretical idea that reducing Federal control of the markets is in the public’s best interest. Congress should also consider whether the new regulations will have costs which might outweigh any (marginal) gains. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Congress should contemplate whether we actually have any constitutional authorization to impose these new regulations, instead of simply stretching the Commerce Clause to justify the program de jour.
government
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?
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:7
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the Federal Government to bail our every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there if for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:8
Increased Federal interference in the market could also harm consumers by crippling innovative market mechanisms to hold corporate managers accountable to their shareholders. Ironically, Mr. Chairman, current SEC regulations make it difficult for shareholders to challenge management decisions. Thus government regulations encourage managers to disregard shareholder interests!
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:9
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a history of crippling market mechanisms to protect shareholders. As former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett pointed out in a recent Washington Times column, during the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as the “junk” bond, which made corporate takeovers easier. Thanks to the corporate raiders, managers knew they had to be responsive to shareholders needs or they would become a potential target for a takeover.
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:11
If left alone by Congress, the market is perfectly capable of disciplining businesses who engage in unsound practices. After all, before the government intervened, Arthur Andersen and Enron had already begun to pay a stiff penalty, a penalty delivered by individual investors acting through the market. This shows that not only can the market deliver punishment, but it can also deliver this punishment swifter and more efficiently than the government. We cannot know what efficient means of disciplining companies would emerge from a market process but we can know they would be better at meeting the needs of investors than a top-down regulatory approach.
government
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.
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:15
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market — not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low.
government
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:16
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate the financial markets or the accounting profession. Instead, responsibility for enforcing laws against fraud are under the jurisdiction of the state and local governments. This decentralized approach actually reduces the opportunity for the type of corruption referred to above — after all, it is easier to corrupt one Federal official than 50 State Officials.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens and the internal affairs of foreign countries leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:12
The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:14
Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:16
Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:20
The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.
government
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:23
During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:9
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank!
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:12
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers.
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:14
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.
government
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:4
In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster’s explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:7
But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution--“to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.”
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:8
The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:9
Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe).
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:11
The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction, out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regular chain of premises and conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort and degree of misery, than has been exercised by any civilized Government in modern times.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:12
But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result. For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:13
The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:15
Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall — if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, ’tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt.
government
Say No to Conscription
May 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 35:16
A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If administration has found that it can not form an army without conscription, it will find, if it venture on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, and in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; and having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government.
government
No Forced Dress Code for U.S. Soldiers Abroad
May 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 41:2
I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose homeland is being defended by American troops. Young Americans join the all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for the “privilege” of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to force his female colleagues to wear an abaya.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:3
H.R. 4737 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:5
As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:8
H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the "New Hires Database" to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be "nasty, brutish and short." However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that "I give at the (tax) office."
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:14
Welfare: Not the Fed’s Job (By Jesse Ventura) In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was smart public policy and worked.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:20
Thompson would want us to do it: by putting people to work. But here’s the rub- it matters how families on welfare get to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one and use a broad range of services to make sure the family breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it might take a little longer that what the president is comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on welfare found that more than three-quarters have left welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable figures in other states. The federal government has twice cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job retention and advancement.
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:23
We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?
government
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:24
I believe in accountable and responsive government, and have no problem with the federal government holding states accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe that in this case the people closest to the problem should be trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have.
government
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:4
Well, I wonder what that means? Over 10 years ago there was an explicit desire and a statement made by the administration that until we had a unified government in Afghanistan, we could not build a gas pipeline across northern Afghanistan. And that is in our interests. Does that mean this is one of the motivations?
government
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:7
Madam Chairman, perhaps the “Afghanistan Freedom Support Act” should more accurately be renamed the “Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act,” because this legislation essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I wonder whether we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years- so maybe we just should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a “coordinator.” After all, we can’t just give away such a huge sum without installing an American overseer to ensure we approve of all aspects of the fledgling Afghan government. Madam Chairman, when we fill a nation’s empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose foreign standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation-building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and during that time American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs.
government
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:13
The bill also reflects a disturbing effort by the Washington elite to conduct experiments in social engineering in Afghanistan. It demands at least five times that the Afghans create a government that is “broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative.” We are imposing race and gender quotas on a foreign government that have been found inappropriate and in some cases even illegal in the United States. Is this an appropriate activity to be carried out with taxpayer funds?
government
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:15
Release of funds authorized by this legislation is dependent on the holding of a traditional Afghan assembly of tribal representatives –a “loya jirga” – as a first step toward democratization. It authorizes $10 million dollars to finance this meeting. That this traditional meeting will produce anything like a truly representative body is already in question, as we heard earlier this month that seven out of 33 influential tribal leaders have already announced they will boycott the meeting. Additionally, press reports have indicated that the U.S. government itself was not too long ago involved in an attempted assassination of a non-Taliban regional leader who happened to be opposed to the rule of the American-installed Hamid Karzai. More likely, this “loya jirga” will be a stage-managed showpiece, primarily convened to please Western donors. Is this any way to teach democracy?
government
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 44:2
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function?
government
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 44:3
The market is already creating solutions to many of these problems through the development of filtering software that responsible parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate materials. The best way to address this problem is by allowing this market process to develop, not by creating new government regulations.
government
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 44:5
I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.
government
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate Older Americans Month by introducing two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
government
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 46:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, "taxing" benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 46:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 46:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. Speaker, HR 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:2
I primarily object to the provisions in HR 3717 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These "premiums," which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks who experience difficulties meeting their commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions which follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses.
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:4
Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago, and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, pointed out in a study for the CATO Institute, the FDIC’s history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC’s poor track record in protecting individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking failures. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators’ records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss.
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government insures their deposits?
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.
government
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3717 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors’ incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.
government
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. Speaker, supporters of fiscal responsibility, a rational foreign policy, and constitutional government can find little, it anything, to support in the Supplemental Appropriations bill (HR 4775). HR 4775 enlarges the federal deficit, increases the size of the federal government, jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund, and, by removing resources from individuals and placing them under government control, depresses economic growth.
government
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:10
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must object to this bill on the grounds that it enables further increases in government spending by providing a method to increases the debt ceiling. It is bad enough that Congress is increasing the debt limit, but this rule provides a procedure whereby the debt limit will be raised in conference, away from public scrutiny. It makes a mockery of open government to impose more government debt on hardworking Americans and future generations by subterfuge.
government
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 52:4
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power.
government
AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD HEALTH CARE
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 54:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief for low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child, in order to help them better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue, but who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
government
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:3
Though reincorporation benefits American investors and workers, some of my colleagues have objected to reincorporation because this action deprives the government of revenue. Some have even gone so far as to question the patriotism of companies that reincorporate. However, there is nothing unpatriotic about trying to minimize one’s tax burden to enhance economic competitiveness. In fact, it could be argued that since reincorporation helps companies create new jobs and expand the American economy, those who reincorporate are behaving patriotically.
government
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:4
One also could argue that it is those who oppose reincorporation who do not grasp the essence of the American system. After all, two of the main principles underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are limited government and respect for private property. In contrast, opponents of reincorporation implicitly assume that the government owns all of a nation’s assets; therefore taxpayers never should take any actions to deny government what the politicians have determined to be their “fair share.” Mr. Speaker, this philosophy has more in common with medieval feudalism than with the constitutional republic created by the drafters of the Constitution.
government
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:14
The politicians who support this are acting as if these companies belonged to the government. Yet when House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, for instance, accuses them of being "unpatriotic," he never explains what’s so patriotic about higher taxes and noncompetitive tax policy.
government
BAD TAX POLICY SENDS COMPANIES OVERSEAS
June 11, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 55:19
Expatriation helps control government waste. High-tax California can’t stop companies from moving to low-tax Nevada. Knowing this helps deter the big-spenders in the state capitol from wasting even more money. The politicians in Massachusetts must exercise some restraint because they know local businesses can flee to low-tax New Hampshire. Nations also should be subject to market discipline. This is why Washington politicians shouldn’t stop companies from escaping bad U.S. tax law.
government
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
government
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
government
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
government
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 57:11
The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation’s security.
government
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 58:2
However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local governments.
government
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 58:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government’s constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.
government
Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act:
June 25, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
government
Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act:
June 25, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 60:2
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewer charges, or debris pick up.
government
Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act:
June 25, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 60:6
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local, as opposed to federal, law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of local officers, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
government
Interstate And Foreign Travel For Sex With Children
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers little solution. First among these is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
government
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 62:3
Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments.
government
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 62:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues’ revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of H.R. 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. H.R. 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement an constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 4954 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 4954 contains several good provisions addressing the Congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempting to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 4954 requires seniors to enroll in a prescription benefit management company (PBM), which is the equivalent of an HMO. Under this plan, the PBM will have the authority to determine which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as PBM bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in PBM plans), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” PBM bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind my colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services which differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:5
I must express my disappointment that this legislation does nothing to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a government- granted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress could do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:6
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government.
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:11
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to American’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC — based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
government
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:12
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 4954 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over what prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 4954 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors prescription drugs, while the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors what prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command-andcontrol approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation giving all seniors access to Medicare Medicaid Savings Accounts.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:18
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:20
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:21
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What’s the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:22
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others’ identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:24
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:25
Because government pays for much of our health care, it’s conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one’s health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:27
The states do exactly as they’re told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:29
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:31
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:37
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:38
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:39
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I’m sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we’re passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:40
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:43
The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we’re not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we’ll talk about freedom.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:49
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:55
To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:58
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:59
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We’re rich, we’re free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:78
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:79
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:82
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:84
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don’t jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it’s not a real attack, then it’s a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:87
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:93
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:96
- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government’s surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:104
There’s no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:105
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:106
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation’s problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:107
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:108
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:111
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:113
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we’re just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it’s not capable of doing.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:115
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people’s lives.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:117
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:119
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it’s our responsibility to manage a world American empire.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:120
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules – whether foreign or domestic.
government
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:121
In a free society, the government’s job is simply to protect liberty – the people do the rest. Let’s not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let’s reject the police state.
government
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 65:3
m From Barron’s, June 24, 2002 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES By Thomas G. Donlan It’s harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a “transitional government,” the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy.
government
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 65:13
In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, "I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen," and then warning the viewers, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you."
government
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 65:15
Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government – even police. That’s how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:1
It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government- for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:2
So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market." No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:7
In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, "the ultimate Maestro." Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:10
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military- industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:13
First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:19
We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it’s deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:20
Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.
government
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:21
These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.
government
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:3
Of course, that would be the ultimate solution, as far as I am concerned, because we are moving in a direction, unfortunately, towards more dependence on government and government regulation, and government programs that allow weapons in a cockpit.
government
H.R. 2896
10 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 67:11
We need to, once again, believe in America, believe in freedom, believe in the Bill of Rights, and let the people take care of so many of these problems instead of getting in the way. This bill, fortunately, is helping to get the government out of the way. That is why I support it.
government
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.
government
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:2
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
government
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:4
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
government
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:5
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
government
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:7
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
government
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:8
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
government
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 71:8
"But along this line, I have a bill that would say that our government, our Treasury could not deal in gold and could not be involved in the gold market unless the Congress knows about it. Now that to me seems like such a reasonable approach and reasonable request. But they say they don’t use it (gold) so we don’t need the bill. But if they are not trading in gold, what would be the harm in the Congress knowing about handling and dealing about this asset, gold?"
government
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 73:4
A clear understanding of private property and an owner’s responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.
government
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 73:6
What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls.
government
Treasury And General Government Appropriations Act, 2003
23 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 74:3
While there is no evidence that sanctions and isolation work, there is plenty of evidence — real concrete evidence — that engagement and trade actually bring about democratic change. In the former Soviet-dominated world — particularly in Central Europe — it was American commercial and individual engagement that proved key to the demise of the dictatorships. It was Americans traveling to these lands with new ideas and a different attitude toward government that helped nurture the seeds of discontent among a population living under the yoke of tyranny. It was American commercial activity that brought in products that the closed and controlled economic systems would or could not produce, thus underscoring to the population the failure of planned economies.
government
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:9
Price fixing foils the market. Government mandated ceilings on apartment rental rates, for instance, create housing shortages, as is well known by anyone who has gone apartment hunting in New York City. Similarly, a legislated interest-rate ceiling would cause a credit shortage: The volume of investment funds demanded would exceed people’s actual willingness to save.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002
25 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 79:3
Instead of a carefully crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in order to appear that we are “doing something.” Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the Federal Government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better served if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the Federal Government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002
25 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 79:5
In the course of just one week, the President’s original 52-page proposal swelled to 232 pages, with most members, including myself, unable to review the greatly expanded bill. While I know that some of those additions are positive, such as Mr. ARMEY’s amendments to protect the privacy of American citizens, it is impossible to fully explore the implications of this, the largest departmental reorganization in the history of our Federal Government, without sufficient time to review the bill. This is especially the case in light of the fact that a number of the recommendations of the standing committees were not incorporated in the legislation, thus limiting our ability to understand how our constituents will be affected by this legislation.
government
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:3
This current proposed legislation suggest that merging 22 government agencies and departments — compromising nearly 200,000 federal employees — into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches — does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term? — is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn’t it a bit ironic that in the name of “homeland security” we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community?
government
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:7
We have also received a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate suggesting that it will cost no less than $3 billion just to implement this new department. That is $3 billion dollars that could be spent to capture those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or to provide tax-relief to the families of the victims of that attack. It is three billion dollars that could perhaps be better spent protecting against future attacks, or even simply to meet the fiscal needs of our government. Since those attacks this Congress has gone on a massive spending spree. Spending three billion additional dollars now, simply to rearrange offices and command structures, is not a wise move. In fact, Congress is actually jeopardizing the security of millions of Americans by raiding the social security trust fund to rearrange deck chairs and give big spenders yet another department on which to lavish porkbarrel spending. The way the costs of this department have skyrocketed before the Department is even open for business leads me to fear that this will become yet another justification for Congress to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance pork-barrel spending. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many questions remain regarding the ultimate effect of these structural changes. Moreover, this legislation will give the Executive Branch the authority to spend money appropriated by Congress in ways Congress has not authorized. This clearly erodes Constitutionally- mandated Congressional prerogatives relative to control of federal spending.
government
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:9
The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that get to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security.
government
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:10
Mr. Speaker, government reorganizations, though generally seen as benign, can have a deleterious affect not just on the functioning of government but on our safety and liberty as well. The concentration and centralization of authority that may result from today’s efforts should give us all reason for pause. But the current process does not allow for pause. Indeed, it militates toward rushing decisions without regard to consequence. Furthermore, this particular reorganization, in an attempt to provide broad leeway for the new department, undermines our Congressional oversight function. Abrogating our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities so hastily now also means that future administrations will find it much easier to abuse the powers of this new department to violate constitutional liberties.
government
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:11
Perhaps a streamlined, reconfigured federal government with a more clearly defined and limited mission focused on protecting citizens and their freedoms could result from this reorganization, but right now it seems far more likely that the opposite will occur. That is why I must oppose creation of this new department.
government
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 81:17
There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early Presidents when he stated, ‘‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, which is one of the essential principles of our government.’’
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:5
The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government; yet, they may well be a major factor in this hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate or banking influence over the foreign policy that replaced that of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:20
Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al- Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:29
If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:31
In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade and neutrality to that of world policemen, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations such as the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it does not, we should ignore it for our own interest’s sake.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:32
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:33
We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if that seems to be what we are able to do now. The unilateralist approach of domination over the world’s leaders, and arbitrary ignoring of certain mandates, something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power, serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interest when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:34
Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility. The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended consequences not foreseen and become the target of the terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:35
Long-term foreign interventionism does not serve our interest. Tinkering on the edges with current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policemen, maintaining an American world empire while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. U.S. unilateralism is a far cry from the nonintervention that the Founders advised.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:36
The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commanderin- Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:38
Avoiding entangling alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is crucial, no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances we should avoid include the complex alliances in the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to the nonintervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:46
A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample notice, and then we would promptly leave the international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned when writing the Constitution.
government
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:52
There are many reasons why a policy for peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change government in foreign lands just because we do not approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument. But rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:5
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:6
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode Americans’ living standard via an inflationary monetary policy.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:10
Why wasn’t it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:12
Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It’s been three decades since the dollar’s tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It’s just another asset the government keeps to itself.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:18
Why isn’t gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can’t rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:21
He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government’s ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:22
Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we’ve seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:23
Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don’t have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:26
How much easier matters were when we didn’t have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:29
What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.
government
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002 2002 Ron Paul 88:3
Proponents of H.R. 1701 admit the benefits of rent-to-own but fret that rent-to-own transactions are regulated by the states, not the federal government. Proponents of this legislation claim that state regulations are inadequate, thus making federal regulations necessary. My well-intentioned colleagues ignore the fact that Congress has no legitimate authority to judge whether or not state regulations are adequate. This is because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate this type of transaction. Thus, whether or not state regulations are adequate is simply not for Congress to judge.
government
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002 2002 Ron Paul 88:5
In addition to exceeding Congress’s constitutional authority, H.R. 1701, like all federal regulatory schemes, could backfire and harm the very people it was intended to help. This is because any regulation inevitably raises the cost of doing business. These higher costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of either higher prices or fewer choices. The result of this is that marginal customers are priced out of the market. These consumers may prefer to sign contracts that do not meet federal standards as opposed to not having access to any rent-to-own contracts, but the Congress will deny them that option. According to the proponents of H.R. 1701, if people cannot obtain desired goods and services under terms satisfactory to the government, they are better off being denied those goods and services. Mr. Chairman, this type of “government knows best” legislation represents the worst type of paternalism and is totally inappropriate for a free society.
government
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, a casual analysis of the world economy shows it rapidly deteriorating into recession, with a possible depression on the horizon. Unemployment is sharply rising with price inflation rampant, despite official government inflationary reports. The world’s stock markets continue to collapse, even after trillions of dollars in losses have been recorded in the past 2 years. These losses already have set historic records.
government
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 89:2
With government revenues shrinking at all levels, we find deficits exploding. Our national debt is currently rising at a $450 billion per year. Confidence in corporate America has shrunk to levels usually reserved for governments alone.
government
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 89:3
Government spending in all areas is skyrocketing, much of it out of the control of the politicians, who show little concern. Yet we are expected to believe our government leaders who say that we are experiencing a recovery and that a return to grand prosperity is just around the corner. The absence of capital formation, savings, and corporate profits are totally ignored.
government
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:7
Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. HR 4600 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.
government
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:8
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.
government
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
government
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 92:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
government
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 93:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs and/or cable networks. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable "marketplace" is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate "exclusive dealings" contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
government
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 93:4
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
government
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 93:6
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.
government
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?
October 3, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 94:8
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.
government
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.
government
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:14
As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."
government
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:25
Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.
government
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:27
The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf . Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.
government
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:31
In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.
government
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.
government
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries have each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!
government
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).
government
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 97:9
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidizes to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contribution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industries’ leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.
government
Child Abduction Prevention Act
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 99:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER alert system a federal program is neither constitutionality sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnaped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meet the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all federal program (with standards determined by D.C.-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.
government
Child Abduction Prevention Act
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 99:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5422 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
government
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:18
Mawyer’s attorney, David Carroll, was present during the incident. He said Mawyer clearly did not violate any laws, and was victimized when the U.N. refused to allow him to exercise his First Amendment right to petition the government, and to exercise his free speech. Carroll added that Mawyer may have grounds to file assault charges against the U.N. Security officers.
government
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:2
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. However, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed Department of Defense in 1945 – two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created that new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedevil the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was passed to deal with problems steaming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.
government
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:3
HR 5710 grants major new powers to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by granting HHS the authority to "administer" the smallpox vaccine to members of the public if the Department unilaterally determines that there is a public health threat posed by smallpox. HHS would not even have to demonstrate an actual threat of a smallpox attack, merely the "potential" of an attack. Thus, this bill grants federal agents the authority to force millions of Americans to be injected with a potentially lethal vaccine based on nothing more than a theoretical potential smallpox incident. Furthermore, this provision continues to restrict access to the smallpox vaccine from those who have made a voluntary choice to accept the risk of the vaccine in order to protect themselves from smallpox. It is hard to think of a more blatant violation of liberty than allowing government officials to force people to receive potentially dangerous vaccines based on hypothetical risks.
government
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.
government
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 101:6
Mr. Speaker, HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
government
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government "benevolence" in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.
government
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:3
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.
government
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:8
The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey.
government
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:14
It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to imagine.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of “Total Information Awareness.” According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:3
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a “Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:8
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:9
He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic “stovepiping.” And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:12
Political awareness can overcome “Total Information Awareness,” the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.
government
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:13
The Latin motto over Poindexter’s new Pentagon office reads “Scientia Est Potentia” “knowledge is power.“ Exactly: the government’s infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. “We’re just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy,” this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.
government
Introduction of the Social Security Preservation Act
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 1:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations, dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS), on the industry. The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.
government
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!
government
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).
government
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 3:10
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government- manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft- yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:6
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:7
Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:8
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:9
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons:
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:11
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:12
Just last month, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:13
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy” regulation, which allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:14
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 5:2
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:5
With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive war and global government drive our foreign policy.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:8
In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:10
A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:23
A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:25
Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:26
Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the equality of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal Government in medicine is greatly increased.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:29
The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:30
Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:32
Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as a good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:34
Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare recipients.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:36
Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations resulting in a high-stakes system of government.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:40
It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:43
The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government’s goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:44
The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:45
As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:46
Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:47
The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet- style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:48
The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:49
Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can’t pay taxes.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:50
Even before 9–11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9–11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:53
Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:54
Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:56
No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:57
Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy. U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:59
The tragedy of 9–11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life. Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:60
Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:62
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:65
What has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the Federal Government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:70
In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I am optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:74
Facing this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, the borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401(k) funds and other retirement programs, are suffering the ill effects of the stock market crash, a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent on Social Security. Government cost-ofliving increases will never be able to keep up with the loss. The elderly are already unable to afford the inflated cost of medical care, especially the cost of pharmaceuticals.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:76
The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:77
Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no “king” with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it is the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:79
Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less consequential than the percent of the nation’s wealth the government commands. Borrowing and central bank credit creation are generally used and are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation to pay as we go.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:80
If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, and the democratic con game would end much more quickly.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:83
This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered “costs” of government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:84
Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property ownership and individual liberty. In contrast, in a free society, all economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the process.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:87
In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is freechoice democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency. In today’s democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by consumers’ voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not governments armed with mandates from the majority.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:88
Even a system of free market money, a redeemable gold coin standard, functions through the principle of consumers always voting or withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a daily basis for or against the government’s money.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:91
This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human Progress,” explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:92
Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. Freedom requires selfcontrol and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:93
In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:94
Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:95
A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interests and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is gone.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:96
When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty and must resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone. This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what one can eat, drink, smoke, or whatever. One group may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer, pornography and sexual behavior are endless. It is now not even permissible to mention the word “God” on public property. A people who allows its government to set personal moral standards for all nonviolent behavior will naturally allow it to be involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but not for those whose benefits are considered out of the mainstream.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:98
This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the role of government is limited to that of protecting freedom.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:99
The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big “why?”
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:101
Few understand this. There are literally no limits to the good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all human progress: individual liberty.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:102
Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:104
Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government mistake.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:106
A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority over other people’s lives, unlike the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who produce. Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-giveaway programs and government contracts. These special interest groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the middle class is required to pay.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:112
But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation’s Capital. A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled out by special interest protectionist measures. Support of international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:113
The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our governmentrun universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:114
The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism, both domestic and international, serve to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people, and this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:117
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:118
The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.
government
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:121
Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.
government
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
government
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
government
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
government
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
government
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 7:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
government
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
government
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 8:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 8:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund moneys for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 8:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
The Terror Immigration Elimination Act
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 10:5
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is time we face reality regarding Saudi Arabia. We must remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Also, when al-Qaeda supporters were rounded up from Afghanistan and held at Camp X-Ray, reports showed that of the 158 prisoners more than one hundred were Saudi nationals. With such an evident level of involvement from Saudi nationals in these activities, it is quite obvious that the Saudi government is not doing all it can, or all it should, in resolving this urgent problem. Therefore, Saudi citizens will also be denied student and “diversity” visas to the United States under this bill.
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year’s an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for social security benefits!
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the Untied States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen!
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. Just before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between the United States and the government of Mexico, which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal, so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: The federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
government
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 11:6
Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program!
government
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.
government
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 13:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education market. Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.
government
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 13:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
government
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:2
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the federal government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
government
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as someone who has, my share of insolicited telemarketing calls, I sympahize fully with the concerns of the sponsors of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (HR 395). However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to “put a stop” to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications.
government
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 20:2
In addition to exceeding Congress’ constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country’s founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own “do-not-call” list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No- Call Implementation Act.
government
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 21:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:3
H.R. 4 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help welfare recipients obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:5
As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura pointed out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing approximately $10 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:8
H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.”
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
government
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.
government
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
government
Another United Nations War
25 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 24:6
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support.
government
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 25:2
While all Americans should be grateful that this country finally extinguished slavery following the Civil War, many scholars believe that the main issue in the Civil War was the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government. President Lincoln himself made it clear that his primary motivation was to preserve a strong central government. For example, in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
government
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 25:5
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
government
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 25:7
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
government
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 25:9
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:4
Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the letter of the law.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:8
Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:9
Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner. There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding. The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a President order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law. Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:14
Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype. How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments. For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:15
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:18
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.
government
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 26:19
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research. Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.
government
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services Committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2004.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
government
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!
government
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:5
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.
government
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:6
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services Committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by passing legislation requiring congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.
government
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 28:6
The other shortcoming economically of wartime is that funds, once they are borrowed, inflated, or taxed, once the government spends these, so much of this expenditure is overseas, and it takes away from domestic spending. So this is a strong negative for the domestic economy. Another thing that arises during wartime so often is the sentiment for protectionism- and a weak economy in wartime will really build an incentive for protectionist measures, and we are starting to see that, which I think is a danger.
government
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 28:8
It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential for war and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned- and this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already. There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope. And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size. It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war. This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore, it diminishes personal individual liberty.
government
Social Security Protection Act Of 2003
5 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal social security reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!
government
Social Security Protection Act Of 2003
5 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 29:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing H.R. 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.
government
American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 30:2
This bill prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.
government
American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 31:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
government
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
government
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
government
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
government
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 32:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
government
Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 33:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
government
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. H.R. 5 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.
government
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:7
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.
government
Crisis In Healthcare
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 35:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
Amber Alert Concerns
19 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 36:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of communitybased law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.
government
Amber Alert Concerns
19 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 36:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
government
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 39:3
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
government
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine
March 27, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 40:2
Unfortunately, most health care reform proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!
government
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. 2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.
government
Social Security Protection Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to HR 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!
government
Social Security Protection Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 44:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing HR 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.
government
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 45:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to nonproducers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.
government
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 45:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
government
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:2
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines’ private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.
government
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:5
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past?
government
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:2
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limited the role of the federal governments in dealing with civil liability matters; instead, it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as gun related alleged-negligence suits, to the state legislatures from which their respective jurisdictions flow.
government
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty.
government
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
government
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 48:4
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
government
United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 48:7
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:3
The dangers to liberty inherent in the “uniform health identifier” are magnified by the so-called “medical privacy” regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protecting the individual’s right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Some individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:4
The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:5
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:6
Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information, accessible to anyone who knows the individual’s unique health identifier. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:10
In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined common good, they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:13
I ask my colleagues to consider how comfortable you would be confiding an embarrassing physical or emotional problem to your physicians if you knew that any and all information given your doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers, handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant or accessed by anyone who happens to know your unique health identifier?
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:14
By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a unique health care identifier, while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledge this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past five fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repealing these dangerous medical privacy rules.
government
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 49:15
Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.
government
Agriculture Education Freedom Act
10 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program.
government
Agriculture Education Freedom Act
10 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 50:2
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the handwringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
government
Agriculture Education Freedom Act
10 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 50:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government.
government
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 51:4
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
government
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 51:6
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
government
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:4
However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with significant “overidentification” of disabled students. Mr. Chairman, the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new mandates on the states!
government
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:12
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington’s existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents’ pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children Act.
government
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a physician I am particularly concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS. I have great sympathy for those — in increasing numbers — who suffer and die around the world. The question is not whether each and every one of us is concerned or would like to do something about this terrible problem. The question is whether yet another massive government foreign aid program will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. The United States has been sending billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “build democracy” and “fight drugs” and “end poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these things have actually gotten worse rather than better. Our money has disappeared into bank accounts of dictators and salaries for extremely well-paid consultants and U.S. Government employees. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes; we are about to make another multi-billion dollar mistake with this bill.
government
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 54:2
Though I have not been in favor of Federal Government funding of healthcare, if this money is going to be spent why shouldn’t it be spent in this country, on American citizens? One legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens and taxpayers. Yet thousands of Americans who have contracted this terrible disease find themselves without any healthcare at all. Thousands of these Americans, as they become ill, are no longer able to work and therefore lose their insurance coverage. Drugs to treat the disease become impossible to afford; those with disease end up along and in misery. I seriously wonder whether negative perceptions of those at risk in this country do not drive this push to send billions abroad rather than address the disease here at home. I believe that if this money is to be spend it should be spent on Americans, regardless of what some may think about those high-risk groups.
government
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
government
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 56:3
The truth is, government officials cannot know what consumers and investors will do if they get a tax cut. Plugging tax cut data into a computer and expecting an accurate projection of the economic outcome is about as reliable as asking Congress to project government surpluses. Two important points are purposely ignored: first, the money people earn is their own, and they have a moral right to keep as much of it as possible. It is not Congress’ money to spend. Government spending is the problem. Taking a big chunk of the people’s earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. Taxation is more honest and direct and the harm is less hidden. Borrowing, especially since the Federal Reserve creates credit out of thin air to loan to big spenders in Congress, is more deceitful. It hides the effects and delays the consequences. But over the long term, this method of financing is much more dangerous.
government
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 56:4
The process by which the Fed monetizes debt and accommodates Congress contributes to, if not causes, most of our problems. This process of government financing generates the business cycle and thus increases unemployment. It destroys the value of the dollar and thus causes price inflation. It encourages deficits by reducing restraints on congressional spending. It encourages an increase in the current account deficit, the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and causes huge foreign indebtedness. It reflects a philosophy of instant gratification that says, live for the pleasures of today and have future generations pay the bills.
government
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 56:5
Two final points to remember: whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue, and second an economic issue. Tax cuts should never be referred to as a “cost to government.” Tax cuts should be much bigger and come much sooner for everyone.
government
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 56:6
Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?
government
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:4
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.
government
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:11
It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment here?
government
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:23
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun – if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.
government
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:32
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
government
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:6
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
government
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:4
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”
government
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:5
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”
government
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:8
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.
government
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:11
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.
government
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privately funded and privately constituted “Continuity of Government Commission” has recently proposed that, for the first time in our nation’s history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body.
government
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:2
The report of this so-called “Commission” makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as “the people’s House” by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly “coming” In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago.
government
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:3
Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the “commission” is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected “representatives” outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House?
government
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 60:4
Let’s face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a near-complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no “system” that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives under any circumstances, we will be on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders.
government
H. Con. res. 177
4 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 61:3
The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States — a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA.
government
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 62:3
My concern, of course, with the commission is that we are moving rather rapidly in that direction. Hopefully, that is not the case. We had the commission report of the Continuity of Government Commission yesterday, and that was released, and then we had a unanimous consent agreement to bring this up, like we need to do this in a hurry.
government
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while may seem reasonable to establish a Joint Committee on the Continuity of Congress, I wish to bring to my colleagues’ attention my concerns relative to certain proposals regarding continuity of government, which would fundamentally alter the structure of our government in a way detrimental to republican liberty.
government
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 64:2
In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal contained in “Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of Government Commission” which recommends that state governors appoint new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of the Founders’ intention that the House of Representatives be the part of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government.
government
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 64:3
Therefore, any action that abridges the people’s constitutional authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the people’s ability to control their government. Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.
government
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 64:4
I would remind my colleagues that this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the people’s right to elect their representatives in order to ensure “continuity of government!”
government
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 65:2
I oppose this bill because at its core it is government intervention — both in our own markets and in the affairs of foreign independent nations. Whether European governments decide to purchase American products should not be a matter for the U.S. Congress to decide. It is a matter for European governments and the citizens of European Union member countries. While it may be true that the European Union acts irrationally in blocking the import of genetically-modified products, the matter is one for European citizens to decide.
government
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 65:3
Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat-managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands — at the behest of foreign governments — that the United States government raise taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade.
government
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
government
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 66:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
government
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 67:4
(4) Before the attack, it was claimed that the Iraqi government would blow up dams to slow down invading troops. It did not do so.
government
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 67:5
(5) Despite claims before the attack, there is no evidence of sustained, high-level contacts between the Iraqi government and the Al- Qaeda terrorist network.
government
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 68:3
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?
government
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 68:4
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty - as the 20 th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
government
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?
June 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 68:5
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly “assemblies” in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 1 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 1 contains several good provisions addressing the congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempts to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:4
Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as Medicare and/or HMO bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in Medicare), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicarecovered pharmaceuticals. I remind may colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services that differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:5
This bill is even more pernicious when one realizes that this plan provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plans. In what is likely to be a futile effort to prevent this from happening, H.R. 1 extends federal subsidies to private insurers to bribe them to keep providing private drug coverage to senior citizens. However, the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that nearly 40 percent of private plans that currently provide prescription drug coverage to seniors will stop providing such coverage if this plan is enacted. This number is certain to skyrocket once the pharmaceutical companies begin passing on any losses caused by Medicare price controls to private plans.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:6
Furthermore, these private plans will be subject to government regulations. Thus, even seniors who are able to maintain their private coverage will fall under federal control. Thus, H.R. 1 will reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice!
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:7
Setting up a system where by many of those currently receiving private coverage are hired into the government program exacerbates one of the major problems with this bill: it hastens the bankruptcy of the Medicare program and the federal government. According to Medicare Trustee, and professor of economics at Texas A&M University, Tom Saving, the costs of this bill could eventually amount to two-thirds of the current public-held debt of $3.8 trillion! Of course, estimates such as this often widely underestimate the costs of government programs. For example, in 1965, the government estimate that the Medicare Part B hospitalization program would cost $9 billion in 1990, but Medicare Part B costs $66 billion in 1990!
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:10
Congress further exacerbates the fiscal problems created by this bill by failing to take any steps to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies, which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a governmentgranted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-Approved pharmaceuticals.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:11
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexico border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:18
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
government
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:20
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 1 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over which prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 1 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors’ prescription drugs, whereas the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors which prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command- and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation that gives all seniors access to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:1
The COGC Proposal The “Continuity of Government Commission” (COGC), spearheaded by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, recently issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack. Specifically, COGC advocates a constitutional amendment calling for the appointment of individuals to the House of Representatives to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history. An examination of the proposal reveals that it is both unnecessary and dangerous.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:2
Note that COGC is “self-commissioned,” its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body. The biographies of the commissioners demonstrate that COGC is made up mostly of professional lobbyists. Of course COGC is well-intentioned, but the nation should know exactly who is trying to substitute their wisdom for that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other framers of the Constitution. I think most Americans would prefer that proposals to amend the Constitution come from elected lawmakers or grassroots efforts, not from think tanks and lobbyists.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:4
COGC is Unnecessary Every generation seems to labor under the delusion that it lives in the most dangerous and turbulent time in human history. COGC certainly proves this point. Its proposal provides doomsday scenarios designed to make us believe that the threat of modern terrorism poses a much greater risk to our government institutions than ever existed in the past. Yet is Congress really more vulnerable than it was at the height of the Cold War, when a single Soviet missile could have destroyed Washington? Surely Congress faced greater danger in 1814, when the British army actually invaded Washington, routed the city, and burned down the White House! Somehow the republic survived those much more perilous times without a constitutional amendment calling for the emergency appointment of Representatives.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:14
COGC focuses on government legitimacy, arguing that a House of Representatives with only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public. In fact the opposite is true: appointed “representatives” will never be seen as legitimate and in fact would not be legitimate. Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected by voters in the member’s district. Madison states in Federalist 52 that “The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.” The very legitimacy of the House of Representatives is based on its constitutional status as the most directly accountable federal body.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:15
The House passes numerous laws, often by voice vote, with very few members present. The legitimacy of those laws is not called into question. Even a House made up of only five elected members would have more legitimacy, as the living continuation of the only elected entity in government, than a House composed of five surviving members and 430 appointees. Furthermore, even a decimated House membership would have to pass legislation with the concurrence of the Senate, which could be restored to full strength immediately by state governors.
government
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:17
Conclusion To quote Professor Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School: “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.” We must not allow the understandable fears and passions engendered by the events of September 11 th to compel a rushed and grievous injury to our system of government. The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis; it is precisely during such times we should hold to it most dearly. Rather than amending the Constitution, Congress should be meeting to discuss how to preserve our existing institutions- including an elected House- in the event of a terrorist attack. The Constitution already provides us with the framework, while technology gives states the ability organize elections quickly. The COGC proposal not only makes a mountain out of a molehill, but also acutely threatens the delicate balance of federal power established in the Constitution.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:1
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:2
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:3
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:4
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:5
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:6
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:7
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:8
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:9
The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:10
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:11
That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:12
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:13
Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:14
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:16
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:20
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:21
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:22
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:23
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:24
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:35
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:50
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:53
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:78
The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:81
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:82
Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:84
Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:85
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:88
If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:93
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:94
Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.
government
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:95
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.
government
Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1
15 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 75:6
We went into Korea over 50 years ago under a U.N. resolution. We are still in Korea. We still have serious problems in Korea. There is still a confrontation that we have with the government of North Korea. I do not see where it is to our benefit, I do not see where it is a benefit to world peace to rely on the United Nations. Even though we rely on the United Nations for authority, when we want the United Nations to go along with our policy as our President asked earlier this year, it was refused. So in many ways we have a policy that does not make a whole lot of sense. We first rely on the United Nations, spend a lot of money, then they do not do our bidding.
government
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect American liberty, privacy and economic wellbeing by introducing legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a “carry tax.” A carry tax is a tax imposed on Americans that requires them to pay a tax whenever they make a bank deposit. The amount of the tax is based on how long their money has been in circulation. Hard as it may be to believe, some in the Federal Government have actually considered imposing this tax on American citizens. Since this bill punishes those who rely on cash for the majority of their economic transactions, and since lower income Americans tend to rely on cash for their economic transactions, this is a highly regressive tax plan. Furthermore, since the plan is designed to lower interest rates, it will negatively impact those who rely on investment income for a significant part of their income. Thus, the carry tax will lower the income of millions of senior citizens.
government
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 78:2
Proposals to punish people if their economic behavior meets with the disapproval of government officials form the foundation of the type of central planning which caused so much misery in the last century. The carry tax proposal is obviously incompatible with a free market. This proposal is also a major threat to personal and financial privacy and thus individual liberty. In order to enforce the carry tax, the government would need a means of monitoring how long each piece of currency has been in circulation and how many hands it passed through before coming into the possession of the person on whom the tax is assessed. Thus, enforcing this tax would also give the government the power to monitor the transactions of individual Americans. The Federal Government should not abuse the authority granted it by our current monetary system and legal tender laws as a backdoor means of prying into the private economic transactions of American citizens. That is why my legislation also forbids the Federal Government from placing any information storage capacity on any Federal Reserve notes.
government
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 78:3
The carry tax was proposed as a measure to counteract the perceived risk of deflation. Yet, the problems this carry tax is intended to solve are caused by our government’s boomand- bust monetary policy. Any perceived deflation in the American economy is the result of the end of the inflationary period of the nineties that created the stock market bubble. When the bubble burst, there was the inevitable process of liquidating bad investments caused by the misallocation of credit as a result of the Federal Reserve monetary policy. In fact, this liquidation is necessary for the economy to recover from the economic misallocations caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.
government
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 78:4
Unfortunately, rather than finally putting an end to the boom-and-bust cycle, most in Washington are preparing to resume the cycle by calling on the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to flood the economy with new money. If Congress is not going to stabilize the American economy by reforming our unstable monetary policy, it should at least refrain from using this government failure as an excuse to further restrict the American people’s liberty through an odious carry tax. I therefore hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold. I also ask for unanimous consent to insert into the RECORD articles by Kelly Patricia O Meara of Insight magazine detailing the evidence supporting allegations that the United States Government has manipulated the price of gold over the past decade and the harm such manipulation caused American investors, taxpayers, consumers, and workers.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.”.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:6
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:7
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role V in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.
government
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:17
The gold bugs appear to be basing their identification of a world gold shortage on industry data, much of which has been summarized in two papers prepared by four different gold analysts at different times using separate methods. The first paper was written by governmental investment adviser Frank Veneroso and his associate, mining analyst Declan Costelloe. Titled Gold Derivatives, Gold Lending: Official Management of the Gold Price and the Current State of the Gold Market, it was presented at the 2002 International Gold Symposium in Lima, Peru, and estimates the gold deficit of the central banks at between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes. The second paper, Gold Derivatives: Moving Towards Checkmate, by Mike Bolser, a retired businessman, and Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, estimates the alleged shortage of central-bank gold at between 15,000 and 16,000 tonnes — nearly a decade’s worth of mine production.
government
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 80:2
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from using the ESF to make a loan or extend credit to any foreign government or entity for an amount exceeding $250,000,000. The bill also forbids the ESF from being used to finance a loan or to extend credit, to any foreign government or entity for a period exceeding 60 days. The 60-day limitation can be waived if the President certifies in writing to the Chair and ranking members of the relevant House and Senate Committees that the United States obtained an assured source of repayment before making the loan or extending the credit. Finally, the bill prohibits the use of the ESF to make loans or extend credit in an amount exceeding $1,000,000,000 to a foreign government or entity without express statutory authorization. This provision can also be waived if the President certifies in writing to the heads of the relevant committees that the loan is necessary to address a financial crisis threatening the United States and Congress does not pass a joint resolution disapproving the loan or credit.
government
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 80:3
Mr. Speaker, these provisions all passed Congress as “riders” on appropriations bills in the 1990s. However, they have not been included in the appropriations bills for the past several years. It is long past time for Congress to make these provisions permanent. Over the past several years there has been great controversy over the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This fund was created in the 1930s to help stabilize the exchange value of the dollar, yet it has mutated into a “slush fund” used by the executive branch to funnel money to foreign governments and even foreign companies free of congressional oversight.
government
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 80:5
Mr. Speaker, it long past time for Congress to begin reasserting its constitutional role in the appropriation of funds for foreign aid programs. For too long, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has allowed the executive branch to commit the American taxpayer to supporting foreign governments without even consulting with Congress. I hope all my colleagues will join my efforts to end this practice by cosponsoring my Foreign Aid Limitation Act.
government
The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 81:3
This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system, it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program!
government
The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 81:6
Forcing seniors into any government program as a precondition of receiving their promised Social Security benefits both violates the promise of Social Security and infringes on the freedom of seniors who do not wish to participate in Medicare. As the author of the submitted letter says, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice Act.
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the markets, rather than government dictates, determine what is to be used as money. Historically, the free-market choice for money has been some combination of gold and silver, whenever they were available. As Dr. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s top expert on constitutional money, states: “A free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.”
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:6
While harming ordinary citizens, legal tender laws help expand the scope of government beyond that authorized under the Constitution. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are financial institutions, especially banks, which have been improperly granted the special privilege of creating fiat irredeemable electronic money out of thin air through a process commonly called fractional reserve lending. According to the Federal Reserve, since 1950 these private companies (banks) have created almost $8 trillion out of nothing. This has been enormously advantageous to them.
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:8
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people’s liberty and prosperity. That is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender power to the federal government, and the states are empowered to make legal tender only out of gold and silver (see Article 1, Section 10). Instead, Congress was given the power to regulate money against a standard, i.e., the dollar. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the Coinage Act of 1792, he simply made into law the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the silver content of the Spanish milled dollar (371.25 grains of silver), which is the dollar referred to in the Constitution. This historical definition of the dollar has never been changed, and cannot be changed any more than the term “inch,” as a measure of length, can be changed. It is a gross misrepresentation to equate our irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money to “dollars.”
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:9
However, during the 20 th century, the legal tender power enabled politicians to fool the public into believing the dollar no longer meant a weight of gold or silver. Instead, the government told the people that the dollar now meant a piece of government-issued paper backed up by nothing except the promises of the government to maintain a stable value of currency. Of course, history shows that the word of the government (to protect the value of the dollar) is literally not worth the paper it is printed on.
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:11
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only Justice to dissent in every legal tender case to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to our constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.” A government with unrestrained powers is properly characterized as tyrannical.
government
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:12
Repeal of legal tender laws will help restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to a medium of exchange chosen by the market, thereby protecting their current purchasing power as well as their pensions, savings, and other promises of future payment. Because honest money serves the needs of ordinary people, instead of fiat irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money that improperly transfers the wealth of society to a small specially privileged financial elite along with other special interests, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:6
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:7
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:9
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:14
The answer is simple: The Federal Reserve, the government created institution that was founded to “stabilize” the value of the dollar and “smooth” “out the business cycle”, which has the legal authority to create money out of thin air, is nothing more than the greatest manipulator of interest rates in the history of the world.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:20
Using the same 4.5% risk free rate, savers should be receiving about $210 billion on their short-term deposits at the nation’s financial institutions. Instead, they are earning about $50 billion, for a loss of $160 billion in annual income. In addition, the U.S. Treasury has approximately $1 trillion in short-term debt that is yielding a little more than 1%. Savers holding the federal government’s short-term debt are losing approximately $35 billion in annual income.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:21
The bottom line: While the economic debate in Washington DC centers around President Bush’s tax cut proposal, which should pass intact because less money in the federal government means more freedom and prosperity for the American people, the Federal Reserve continues to perpetuate the greatest theft in world history. By having the power to manipulate interest rates, the FED in effect has not only a license to print money but also can redistribute income form savers to borrowers.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:22
The winners of the FED’s interest rate manipulations include the nations’ financial institutions, business borrowers and government. The losers are anyone who wants to save for the proverbial rainy day and accumulate money for a down payment on a house or other family need.
government
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:23
Thus, Federal Reserve policy aids and abets the legalized theft of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from low-and middle- income families to the economic elites of this country and profligate governments at all levels — all with the approval of the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration.
government
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:2
Just last year, Argentina was rocked by an economic crisis caused by IMF policies. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayersubsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6 percent into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!
government
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:3
According to Congressman JIM SAXTON, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”
government
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
government
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government- to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market; and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
government
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 84:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politicallypowerful special interests and third-world dictators.
government
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 85:9
One question, though, I hope gets asked: Why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as justification for going to war? One would think the billions we spend would produce reliable intelligence-gathering agencies.
government
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 87:4
I do not think the American people want that. I think the American people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.
government
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards.
government
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:4
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) to make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal Government would not have access to the library records.
government
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:8
It took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop this concept that governments do not have the right to break in without the proper procedures and without probable cause. And yet we threw that out the window in this post-9/11 atmosphere, and we gave away a lot.
government
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:9
Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning. It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on, and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution, the fourth amendment.
government
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:11
In that bill there is a proposal that the government can strip us of our citizenship, and then anybody then stripped of their citizenship could be put into the situation that many foreigners find themselves in at Guantanamo before the military tribunals.
government
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:12
I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize how serious the PATRIOT Act is.
government
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:6
That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States’ rights and States’ abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.
government
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:7
There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State law of California.
government
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:7
However, the fact that Medicare, that is already on shaky financial ground, will soon be subsidizing prescription drug costs makes it more important than ever that Congress address the issue of prescription drug costs. Of course, Congress’s actions should respect our constitutional limits and not further expand the role of government in the health care market.
government
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:8
Fortunately, there are a number of marketoriented policies Congress can adopt to lower the prices of prescription drugs. This is because the main reason prescription drug prices are high is government policies, that give a few powerful companies monopoly power. For example, policies restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals enable pharmaceutical companies to charge abovemarket prices for their products. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should support H.R. 2427.
government
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:11
Other opponents of this bill have charged that creating a free market in pharmaceuticals will impose Canadian style price controls on prescription drugs. This is nonsense. Nothing in H.R. 2427 gives the government any additional power to determine pharmaceutical prices. H.R. 2427 simply lowers trade barriers, thus taking a step toward ensuring that Americans pay a true market price for prescription drugs. This market price will likely be lower than the current price because current government policies raise the price of prescription drugs above what it would be in the market.
government
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:12
Today, Americans enjoy access to many imported goods which are subject to price controls, and even receive government subsidies, in their countries of origin. Interestingly, some people support liberalized trade with Communist China, which is hardly a free economy, while opposing H.R. 2427! American policy has always been based on the principle that our economy is strengthened by free trade even when our trading partners engage in such market distorting policies as price controls and industrial subsidies. There is no good reason why pharmaceuticals should be an exception to the rule.
government
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:13
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the numerous D.C.-based “free-market” organizations that are opposing this bill. Anyone following this debate could be excused for thinking they have entered into a Twilight Zone episode where “libertarian” policy wonks argue that the Federal Government must protect citizens from purchasing the pharmaceuticals of their choice, endorse protectionism, and argue that the Federal Government has a moral duty to fashion policies designed to protect the pharmaceutical companies’ profit margins. I do not wish to speculate on the motivation behind this deviation from free-market principles among groups that normally uphold the principles of liberty. However, I do hope the vehemence with which these organizations are attacking this bill is motivated by sincere, if misguided, principle, and not by the large donations these organizations have received from the pharmaceutical industry. If the latter is the case, then these groups have discredited themselves by suggesting that their free-market principles can be compromised when it serves the interests of their corporate donors.
government
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:2
Unfortunately, the federal government is strangling this vital industry with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government mandates catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS) on the industry. Our shrimpers’ foreign competitors operate without such regulations, placing them at a distinct advantage. The mandatory use of these devices also results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.
government
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:3
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries supplied nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of 2002, and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!
government
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!
government
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 92:7
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I therefore hope that Congress will soon stand up for American shrimpers by passing my Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:2
Alan Greenspan, years before he became Federal Reserve Board Chairman in charge of flagrantly debasing the U.S. dollar, wrote about this connection between sound money, prosperity, and freedom. In his article “Gold and Economic Freedom” ( The Objectivist, July 1966), Greenspan starts by saying: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is an issue that unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense…that gold and economic freedom are inseparable.” Further he states that: “Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.” Astoundingly, Mr. Greenspan’s analysis of the 1929 market crash, and how the Fed precipitated the crisis, directly parallels current conditions we are experiencing under his management of the Fed. Greenspan explains: “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market- triggering a fantastic speculative boom.” And, “…By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become overwhelming and unmanageable by the Fed.” Greenspan concluded his article by stating: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” He explains that the “shabby secret” of the proponents of big government and paper money is that deficit spending is simply nothing more than a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.” Yet here we are today with a purely fiat monetary system, managed almost exclusively by Alan Greenspan, who once so correctly denounced the Fed’s role in the Depression while recognizing the need for sound money.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:4
If honest money and freedom are inseparable, as Mr. Greenspan argued, and paper money leads to tyranny, one must wonder why it’s so popular with economists, the business community, bankers, and our government officials. The simplest explanation is that it’s a human trait to always seek the comforts of wealth with the least amount of effort. This desire is quite positive when it inspires hard work and innovation in a capitalist society. Productivity is improved and the standard of living goes up for everyone. This process has permitted the poorest in today’s capitalist countries to enjoy luxuries never available to the royalty of old.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:6
Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.” Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.” This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:12
Money is a moral, economic, and political issue. Since the monetary unit measures every economic transaction, from wages to prices, taxes, and interest rates, it is vitally important that its value is honestly established in the marketplace without bankers, government, politicians, or the Federal Reserve manipulating its value to serve special interests. Money As a Moral Issue
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:13
The moral issue regarding money should be the easiest to understand, but almost no one in Washington thinks of money in these terms. Although there is a growing and deserved distrust in government per se, trust in money and the Federal Reserve’s ability to manage it remains strong. No one would welcome a counterfeiter to town, yet this same authority is blindly given to our central bank without any serious oversight by the Congress.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:14
When the government can replicate the monetary unit at will without regard to cost, whether it’s paper currency or a computer entry, it’s morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Both ways, it’s fraud.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:17
Fiat money is also immoral because it allows government to finance special interest legislation that otherwise would have to be paid for by direct taxation or by productive enterprise. This transfer of wealth occurs without directly taking the money out of someone’s pocket. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest, with their dollars being depreciated in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The easy credit helps investors and consumers who have no qualms about going into debt and even declaring bankruptcy.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:24
In the 1870s, the people once again spoke out clearly against the greenback inflation of Lincoln. Notoriously, governments go to paper money while rejecting gold to promote unpopular and unaffordable wars. The return to gold in 1879 went smoothly and was welcomed by the people, putting behind them the disastrous Civil War inflationary period.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:28
A central bank and fiat money enable government to maintain an easy war policy that under strict monetary rules would not be achievable. In other words, countries with sound monetary policies would rarely go to war because they could not afford to, especially if they were not attacked. The people could not be taxed enough to support wars without destroying the economy. But by printing money, the cost can be delayed and hidden, sometimes for years if not decades. To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:31
We do hear some talk about monetary policy and criticism directed toward the Federal Reserve, but it falls far short of what I’m talking about. Big-spending welfarists constantly complain about Fed policy, usually demanding lower interest rates even when rates are at historic lows. Big-government conservatives promoting grand worldwide military operations, while arguing that “deficits don’t matter” as long as marginal tax rates are lowered, also constantly criticize the Fed for high interest rates and lack of liquidity. Coming from both the left and the right, these demands would not occur if money could not be created out of thin air at will. Both sides are asking for the same thing from the Fed for different reasons. They want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:38
Nations that live beyond their means must always pay for their extravagance. It’s easy to understand why future generations inherit a burden when the national debt piles up. This requires others to pay the interest and debts when they come due. The victims are never the recipients of the borrowed funds. But this is not exactly what happens when a country pays off its debt. The debt, in nominal terms, always goes up, and since it is still accepted by mainstream economists that just borrowing endlessly is not the road to permanent prosperity, real debt must be reduced. Depreciating the value of the dollar does that. If the dollar loses 10% of its value, the national debt of $6.5 trillion is reduced in real terms by $650 billion dollars. That’s a pretty neat trick and quite helpful- to the government.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:52
We own the printing press and create as many dollars as we please. These dollars are used to buy federal debt. This allows our debt to be monetized and the spendthrift Congress, of course, finds this a delightful convenience and never complains. As the dollars circulate through our fractional reserve banking system, they expand many times over. With our excess dollars at home, our trading partners are only too happy to accept these dollars in order to sell us their products. Because our dollar is relatively strong compared to other currencies, we can buy foreign products at a discounted price. In other words, we get to create the world’s reserve currency at no cost, spend it overseas, and receive manufactured goods in return. Our excess dollars go abroad and other countries-especially Japan and China- are only too happy to loan them right back to us by buying our government and GSE debt. Up until now both sides have been happy with this arrangement.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:56
In the short run, the current system gives us a free ride, our paper buys cheap goods from overseas, and foreigners risk all by financing our extravagance. But in the long run, we will surely pay for living beyond our means. Debt will be paid for one way or another. An inflated currency always comes back to haunt those who enjoyed the “benefits” of inflation. Although this process is extremely dangerous, many economists and politicians do not see it as a currency problem and are only too willing to find a villain to attack. Surprisingly the villain is often the foreigner who foolishly takes our paper for useful goods and accommodates us by loaning the proceeds back to us. It’s true that the system encourages exportation of jobs as we buy more and more foreign goods. But nobody understands the Fed role in this, so the cries go out to punish the competition with tariffs. Protectionism is a predictable consequence of paper- money inflation, just as is the impoverishment of an entire middle class. It should surprise no one that even in the boom phase of the 1990s, there were still many people who became poorer. Yet all we hear are calls for more government mischief to correct the problems with tariffs, increased welfare for the poor, increased unemployment benefits, deficit spending, and special interest tax reduction, none of which can solve the problems ingrained in a system that operates with paper money and a central bank.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:64
The world central bankers are concerned with the lack of response to low interest rates and they have joined in a concerted effort to rescue the world economy through a policy of protecting the dollar’s role in the world economy, denying that inflation exists, and justifying unlimited expansion of the dollar money supply. To maintain confidence in the dollar, gold prices must be held in check. In the 1960s our government didn’t want a vote of no confidence in the dollar, and for a couple of decades, the price of gold was artificially held at $35 per ounce. That, of course, did not last.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:67
Monetary policy today is designed to demonetize gold and guarantee for the first time that paper can serve as an adequate substitute in the hands of wise central bankers. Trust, then, has to be transferred from gold to the politicians and bureaucrats who are in charge of our monetary system. This fails to recognize the obvious reason that market participants throughout history have always preferred to deal with real assets, real money, rather than government paper. This contest between paper and honest money is of much greater significance than many realize. We should know the outcome of this struggle within the next decade.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:68
Alan Greenspan, although once a strong advocate for the gold standard, now believes he knows what the outcome of this battle will be. Is it just wishful thinking on his part? In an answer to a question I asked before the Financial Services Committee in February 2003, Chairman Greenspan made an effort to convince me that paper money now works as well as gold: “I have been quite surprised, and I must say pleased, by the fact that central banks have been able to effectively simulate many of the characteristics of the gold standard by constraining the degree of finance in a manner which effectively brought down the general price levels.” Earlier, in December 2002, Mr. Greenspan spoke before the Economic Club of New York and addressed the same subject: “The record of the past 20 years appears to underscore the observation that, although pressures for excess issuance of fiat money are chronic, a prudent monetary policy maintained over a protracted period of time can contain the forces of inflation.” There are several problems with this optimistic assessment. First, efficient central bankers will never replace the invisible hand of a commodity monetary standard. Second, using government price indexes to measure the success of a managed fiat currency should not be reassuring. These indexes can be arbitrarily altered to imply a successful monetary policy. Also, price increases of consumer goods are not a litmus test for measuring the harm done by the money managers at the Fed. The development of overcapacity, excessive debt, and speculation still occur, even when prices happen to remain reasonably stable due to increases in productivity and technology. Chairman Greenspan makes his argument because he hopes he’s right that sound money is no longer necessary, and also because it’s an excuse to keep the inflation of the money supply going for as long as possible, hoping a miracle will restore sound growth to the economy. But that’s only a dream.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:72
The odds aren’t very good that the Fed will adopt a policy of not inflating the money supply because of some very painful consequences that would result. Also there would be a need to remove the pressure on the Fed to accommodate the big spenders in Congress. Since there are essentially only two groups that have any influence on spending levels, big-government liberals and big- government conservatives, that’s not about to happen. Poverty is going to worsen due to our monetary and fiscal policies, so spending on the war on poverty will accelerate. Our obsession with policing the world, nation building, and pre-emptive war are not likely to soon go away, since both Republican and Democratic leaders endorse them. Instead, the cost of defending the American empire is going to accelerate. A country that is getting poorer cannot pay these bills with higher taxation nor can they find enough excess funds for the people to loan to the government. The only recourse is for the Federal Reserve to accommodate and monetize the federal debt, and that, of course, is inflation.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:82
Curbing the scope of government and limiting its size to that prescribed in the Constitution is the goal that we should seek. But political reality makes this option available to us only after a national bankruptcy has occurred. We need not face that catastrophe. What we need to do is to strictly limit the power of government to meddle in our economy and our personal affairs, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. Conclusion
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:83
It’s no coincidence that during the period following the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the elimination of the gold standard, a huge growth in the size of the federal government and its debt occurred. Believers in big government, whether on the left or right, vociferously reject the constraints on government growth that gold demands. Liberty is virtually impossible to protect when the people allow their government to print money at will. Inevitably, the left will demand more economic interventionism, the right more militarism and empire building. Both sides, either inadvertently or deliberately, will foster corporatism. Those whose greatest interest is in liberty and self-reliance are lost in the shuffle. Though left and right have different goals and serve different special-interest groups, they are only too willing to compromise and support each other’s programs.
government
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:86
Real economic growth won’t return until confidence in the entire system is restored. And that is impossible as long as it depends on the politicians not spending too much money and the Federal Reserve limiting its propensity to inflate our way to prosperity. Only sound money and limited government can do that.
government
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to present comments on the important issue of how to maintain continuity of government if a majority of members of the House of Representatives are incapacitated. This issue has recently attracted attention because of the proposal of the “Continuity of Government (COG) Commission,” that the Constitution be amended to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House in the event of an emergency.
government
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 94:3
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. Turning once again to Federalist 52, we find this point eloquently made by Mssrs. Madison and Hamilton: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”
government
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 94:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are re-examining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
government
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 94:6
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia (where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside) was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government. Yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.
government
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.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:3
One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:5
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:6
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:7
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:9
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
government
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:10
Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
government
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.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:2
One of the major government privileges granted the GSE is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not have reason to believe that Fannie and Freddie were underwritten by the Federal government then investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provided assurance they were following accepted management and accounting practices before investing in Fannie and Freddie.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:5
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing marketing by allowing Fannie, Freddie and the home loan bank board to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capitol is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:6
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially- created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:8
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac.
government
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:9
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
government
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.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:3
One of the problems facing America’s domestic steel industry is that it must compete with foreign industries that receive subsidies from their governments. Some of these subsidies are explicitly intended to provide these companies with a non-market advantage over American steel producers. The U.S. Government further compounds the damage caused by these subsidies by forcing the domestic steel producers to support their major competitors through taxpayer-funded programs.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:5
Meanwhile, OPIC has provided over $3 billion of the taxpayers’ money to seven of the top ten leading steel exporters. Thus, the American taxpayer has provided at least $253 billion worth of support to the countries that are the leading competitors of the domestic steel industry. This does not count the funds provided these countries by the IMF. Since money is fungible, the practical effect of providing aid to countries which practice industrial policy is to free up resources these governments can use to further subsidize their steel industries. Thus, taxpayer dollars sent to foreign governments and industries can benefit foreign steel manufacturers even if American taxpayer money is not sent to directly benefit those industries.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:7
Ironically, many of the supporters of these foreign giveaways claim to be promoters of free trade. This claim makes as much sense as a supporter of higher taxes and spending claiming to be a fiscally conservative supporter of limited government. Free trade is the peaceful exchange of goods and services across borders unhampered by government interference. Taxing American workers to support their overseas competitors is not free trade. Instead, it is corporatism designed to benefit certain politically powerful interests at the expense of American entrepreneurs and workers.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 97:8
I have no doubt that America’s steel industry can out-compete the steel industry of any country if allowed to compete on a level planning field. Unfortunately, due in part to government policy, today’s playing field is in no way level. Congress must end this economically destructive, immoral, and unconstitutional policy of forcing owners and workers in the domestic steel industry to subsidize their competitors. I therefore call upon my colleagues to cosponsor the Steel Financing Fairness Act.
government
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:7
We are now told that we must occupy Iraq to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Yet not one shred of evidence has been produced to show that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11 or any affiliation with al-Qaeda.
government
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:9
Some believe that by not raising taxes to pay for the war we can fund it on the cheap. We cannot. When deficits skyrocket the federal government prints more money, the people are effectively taxed by losing value in their savings and in their paychecks. The inflation tax is a sinister and evil way to pay for unpopular wars. It has been done that way for centuries.
government
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:3
Secretary Annan is not the only globalist calling for international controls on firearms. For example, some world leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac, have called for a global tax on firearms. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council’s “Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms” calls for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and praises the restrictive gun polices of Red China and France!
government
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:4
Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right . Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!
government
Reject UN Gun Control!
September 18, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 101:5
Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. If the UN is successful in implementing a global regime of gun control, more innocent lives will be lost to public (and private) criminals.
government
Tribute To Larry Reed
25 september 2003 2003 Ron Paul 102:3
In addition to running Mackinac, Larry is a prolific author. He has written over 800 newspaper columns and articles, 200 radio commentaries, dozens of articles in magazines and journals in the United States and abroad. Larry is also the author of five books including Lessons From the Past: The Silver Panic of 1893 and Private Cures for Public Ills: The Promise of Privatization. All of Larry’s writings reflect his unswerving commitment to limited government and the free market as the best way to promote human happiness.
government
Tribute To Larry Reed
25 september 2003 2003 Ron Paul 102:5
In 1993, Larry was appointed by then-Governor John Engler to head the Headlee Amendment Blue Ribbon Commission. Governor Engler also appointed Larry to the task force of the Secchia Commission on Total Quality Government, where Larry helped develop policies aimed at streamlining Michigan’s state government. I am sure the taxpayers of Michigan are grateful to Larry for his efforts to reduce unnecessary spending.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:2
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:4
Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a child’s right to a quality education and the need for equal educational opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have a “right” to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting government’s role in establishing standards to ensure that providers are giving their consumers a “quality” product. Thus, in order to ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students’ “right” to a “quality” education (as defined by the government) private schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as the public schools.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:5
Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled the list to “help” parents choose a quality school for their children.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:6
The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:7
Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to “...an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control religious activities.”
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:8
Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the “government’s seal of approval.” Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:9
We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the college of their choice. However the government has used its support of student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality education if the experience of higher education was replicated in private K-12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the supporters of vouchers have their way.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:10
Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests that, “The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing regime mandated by Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for public schools.” In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test.
government
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:14
Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state and impose government “standards” on private schools, turning them into “privatized” versions of public schools. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.
government
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American dream, as conceived by the Nation’s Founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, often times sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the Federal Government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.
government
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:3
As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politician and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.
government
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:4
H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of private citizens.
government
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:3
“NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements . . .
government
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:4
“. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of “promoting democracy.” Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED’s detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls . . .
government
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:6
The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.
government
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:10
Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha’s Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.
government
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:12
In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that “IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign,” adding that IRI efforts secured “a victory for reformers in Slovakia.” What the IRI does not say is that many of these “reformers” had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?
government
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 106:4
This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government’s inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders — particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year – potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm – yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan.
government
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria
October 15, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 106:7
“The Syrians have in custody Mohammed Haydar Zammer, believed to have recruited some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and several high-level Iraqis who were connected to the Saddam Hussein government have turned up in US custody.”
government
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the name of “national security,” fails both of these standards. In fact, when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was greeted by silence from the “expert” witnesses!
government
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 107:5
I am also concerned that this bill violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. In particular, DPA allows the government to seize private property by interfering with the performance of private contracts in order to give priority to military production. This action reduces the value of the affected parties’ proprietary interests, and thus is a taking, requiring the government to provide just compensation to the affected party. The Fifth Amendment intends to assure that the government does not unfairly burden one group of citizens in carrying out its constitutional functions. By not providing for just compensation, DPA allows the executive to unfairly burden one group of citizens for costs that the Constitution requires be shared among the entire population.
government
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).
government
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:17
This is one of the reasons why I think the debate just in these last couple of days on whether or not the money would be a loan or a grant really did not have a whole lot of merit. I happen to have supported all the amendments that said it should be a loan, not a grant, but it does not make a bit of difference because the likelihood of a country like Iraq, that does not have a government, being able to make a promise and then pay us back, we generally never get paid back anything. So that to me was a red-herring argument that was sort of one of the tactical or accounting arguments that occupied a tremendous amount of time here by avoiding the bigger issue on whether or not it is a proper role for the United States to be telling the rest of the world how to live and it is our obligation to nation-build and our obligation to redraw the lines of the Middle East. That is the bigger question, and this is the debate I hope to hear that we have on this floor some day.
government
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:31
James Madison early on in 1798 gave us some advice about the Presidential power and congressional power to go to war, but he was explaining why it was important to keep it in the hands of the legislative body. He says, The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.
government
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 115:3
In arguing for fluctuating rates, the backers of H. Res. 414 are demanding that the Chinese Government adopt an irrational policy. A sound economy requires a sound and dependable unit of economic measurement. Yet, by definition, under fluctuating rates the currency, which serves as the basic unit of economic measurement, will not be sound and dependable. Instead, that value will change depending on the whims of politicians and the perceived economic needs of politically powerful special interests.
government
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 115:4
China, in fact, has done very well with a fixed measurement of value. China’s economic growth rate is high; China is also exporting many products into our market while our domestic producers are suffering. Therefore, China makes a good scapegoat for our economic problems. Demanding that the Chinese government adjust its currency is a convenient distraction from addressing the real economic problems facing our country.
government
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 115:7
Congress should also consider how the Chinese benefit the United States Government by holding our debt. The dollars the Chinese acquire by selling us goods and services must be returned to the United States. Since the Chinese are not buying an equivalent amount of American goods and services, they are using the dollars to finance our extravagant spending.
government
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 115:10
Instead of promoting global economic government, the United States Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers’ competitiveness. Recently, a financial journalist visited with businessmen who are launching new enterprises in China. When he asked them why they chose to invest in China, they answered: “It is so much easier to start a business in China than in the United States, especially in places like Massachusetts and California.” This answer should send a clear message to every lawmaker in America: the taxes and regulations imposed on American businesses are damaging economic growth and killing jobs. If we were serious about creating jobs, we would be working on an aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and repealing needless regulations.
government
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.
government
Best Energy Policy Is The Free Market
18 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again voting to take our Nation further down the path toward a system of centralized Federal planning of our energy supply. The very notion of a national energy policy is collectivist; it assumes that an energy supply would not exist without a government plan. Yet basic economics teaches us that nothing could be further from the truth.
government
Best Energy Policy Is The Free Market
18 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 118:5
Let me provide just a few examples of the most egregious, wasteful spending measures and corporate subsidies contained in this legislation: It spends even more than the President requested; it provides $90 million in subsidies for hydroelectric power plants; it provides $500 million for research and development of Biomass; it authorizes almost $2 billion for the Energy Department to do what the private sector would if it was profitable — develop hydrogen cars; it allows FERC to use eminent domain to ride roughshod over State and local governments; it increases failed ethanol subsidies to favored agribusiness companies, while providing liability protection for those companies; it requires States to reduce energy consumption by 25 percent in 2010, including States with growing populations like Texas; it forces taxpayers to guarantee loans for pipeline projects, despite the easy availability of cheap credit; it spends $20 million for the Labor Department to recruit and train Alaskan employees to build a new pipeline; and it authorizes the Energy Department to create efficiency standards for vending machines!
government
Don’t Meddle With Religion In Vietnam
19 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill-timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Yet are we not doing that today — albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of “religious freedom”? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to “closely monitor” religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam’s leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.
government
Advancing Religious Freedom Worldwide Not Our Job
19 November 2003 2003 Ron Paul 120:2
Mr. Speaker, as Americans we have a special attachment to the idea of religious freedom. That is the reason many of our ancestors came to this land and fought for independence. But I don’t think the way to advance religious freedom around the world is to demand that every country adopt our approach. I believe that so demanding will only engender ill-will toward the United States and, ironically, increased resistance to this idea. People generally to not like being told by foreign countries what to do or how they can worship. I believe the best way we can promote the idea of religious liberty abroad is to serve as a working, living example of the benefits of liberty. The United States has been admired historically in other countries because our system of government demonstrates the economic and other benefits of liberty. That is why other nations seek to emulate the United States, not because we demand that their religious laws conform to our notions of what is acceptable.
government
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:2
Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn’t have the guts even to name the program a military draft; instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he advised the army should be “chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.” Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn’t believe actual combat troops would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the carnage that followed – and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age than the one we find ourselves in today.
government
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:18
A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. The ends can never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.
government
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 123:1
Much has been written lately about several attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The best known of these recent plans - the “Geneva Initiative” -was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but without the involvement of governments or politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that can only be crafted by government officials, or bribed and bullied by the “international community”.
government
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 123:2
We do know this: after decades of conflict and tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars spent, US government involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest US government-initiated plan for peace, the “road map,” appears to be a map to nowhere. This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of money to bribe the leaders of the two opposing sides to remain engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never arrive at peace?
government
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 123:3
But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated with the endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace agreements that go nowhere.
government
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 123:5
I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace. And that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian population support this new initiative. That is encouraging.
government
Whose Peace?
December 8, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 123:7
Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those-- governments, politicians, and special interests-- who have a stake in dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations that have a special interest in continuing the violence have also rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the Initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon: “Geneva is an attempt to do something only a government can do.”
government
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 1:1
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:9
Conservatives Who Spend: Conservatives for years have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of government, while supporting a new- found religion that preaches deficits don’t matter. According to Paul O’Neill, the Vice President lectured him that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo-conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing government growth is impossible. Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year? Even today, the only expression of concern for the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we have gone.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:12
Following the Constitution—Arbitrarily, Of Course : Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one’s opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency! It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:16
Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters. The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for various reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:26
-A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for each state or providence, is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away — no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands around the world.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience or Necessity? Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty! It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:36
Conclusion: Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The greatest open-minded idea I’m aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others, whether it’s in economic, social, or moral policy, or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed mind. Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no more capable of running an economy made fair for everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to government for all guidance and security.
government
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:38
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos, or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by government — most suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards for private property ownership are the three principles required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or state entity.
government
Social Security Protection Act
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 3:2
However, I wish to make clear my continued opposition to a provision in the bill that removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same personal Social Security benefits, as does every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal Social Security benefits reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full Social Security benefits either before or after working in the public school system.
government
Social Security Protection Act
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 3:3
The Government Pension Offset punishes people for teaching in public schools. However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting a full Social Security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill takes that option away from Texas teachers. I have twice voted against H.R. 743 because of my strong opposition to the provision removing the only way Texas teachers can avoid the Government Pension Offset.
government
Social Security Protection Act
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 3:4
Instead of repealing the only means Texas teachers have of avoiding the Government Pension Offset, Congress should pass H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits.
government
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than will opioids obtained from a physician.
government
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.
government
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.
government
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge. Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:6
While the committee’s “Views and Estimates” devote considerable space to discussing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), it makes no mention of the billions of dollars in subsidies Congress has given to GSEs. These subsidies distort the market, create a short-term boom in housing, and endanger the economy by allowing GSEs to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:7
Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, the financial losses suffered by the mortgage debt holders will be greater than they would have been had the government not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:8
Government subsidies helped Fannie and Freddie triple their debt to more than $2.2 trillion from 1995 to 2002. Fannie and Freddie’s combined debt soon could surpass the privately held debt of the entire federal government. A taxpayer bailout of the GSEs would dwarf the savings-and-loan bailout of the early nineties and could run up the national debt to unmanageable levels.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:9
However, according to the Committee on Financial Services, the problem with GSEs is not taxpayer subsidizes but a lack of proper regulation! Therefore, the only GSE reform recommended by this document is to create a new regulator to oversee GSEs. In fact, new regulators, or new regulations, will not do anything to correct the market distortions caused by government support of GSEs.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:10
Instead of reorganizing the deck chairs of the GSEs’ looming fiscal Titanic, the Committee should pass HR 3071, the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This act repeals government subsidies for the housing-related GSEs — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home Loan Bank Board.
government
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!
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:13
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund. If the committee is not going to defund programs such as Ex-Im, it should at least act on legislation Mr. Sanders will introduce denying corporate welfare to industries that move a substantial portion of their workforce overseas. It is obscene to force working Americans to subsidize their foreign competitors.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.
government
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:16
It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need to reform the fiat currency system. The committee also should examine how Federal Reserve policies encourage excessive public and private sector debt, and the threat that debt poses to the long-term health of the American economy. Additionally, the committee should examine how the American government and economy would be affected if the dollar lost its privileged status as the world’s reserve currency. After all, the main reason the United States government is able to run such large deficits without suffering hyperinflation is the willingness of foreign investors to hold US debt instruments. If, or when, the dollar’s weakness causes foreigners to become reluctant to invest in US debt instruments, the results could be cataclysmic for our economy.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:8
Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
government
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation.
government
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
government
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
government
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
government
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:2
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.” Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:5
This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech. Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared — and besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements. Supporters of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all societies.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:11
The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect the peoples’ attitudes prompts this effort. It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times. It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that we now see as routine entertainment. Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression. Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed. Societal standards will not be improved. Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:12
Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it’s the government’s responsibility to protect them. The mistake of never having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st Amendment mandate that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it. Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power. From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:14
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion. It just doesn’t work.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:15
But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government does not act by:
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:18
- Arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special interests;
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:20
If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with. This principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies. That means total control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views. This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists. And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century. This is the real danger, and if we’re in the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the logical next step.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:21
It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known to man. Sadly, we’re moving in that direction, and no matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the government.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:23
Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the speech police. He states: “I’m in the free speech business,” as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies’ authority and responsibility to self-regulate.
government
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
March 10, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 14:24
Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment. This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of speech — of any kind.
government
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 15:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.
government
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 15:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.
government
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 15:6
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
government
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.
government
Undermining First Amendment
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 16:6
I would like to close by quoting someone who is obviously not a libertarian and obviously not a liberal who has great concern about what we are doing, and he comes from the conservative right, Rush Limbaugh. He said: “If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong, what happens if a whole bunch John Kerrys or Terry McAuliffes start running this country and decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It is one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be a party to it. It is another thing for the government to do it.”
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the “people” don’t really control the airwaves anymore then the “people” control the government in the “People’s Republic” of China! Instead, the “people’s airwaves” is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:5
Congress should reject H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate federal standards, H.R. 3717 expands an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. H.R. 3717 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 3717 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is “obscene” or “indecent.” While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is “hate speech.” Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include “hate speech.” Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 3717 also hold views that would likely be classified as “indecent hate speech.”
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:10
If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong . . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys, or Terry McAliffes start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence?
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:11
I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for the government to do it.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:14
Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from “indecent” broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people’s morals; it can only reduce liberty.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 17:18
These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.
government
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 19:7
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples:
government
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 19:9
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon.
government
Opposing H.R. 557
17 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 19:12
This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor.
government
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.
government
North American Development Bank
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 21:3
When Congress funds institutions like NAD, it transfers resources from the private sector to the government. When resources are left in the private sector, they are put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, the use of resources transferred to the public sector by agencies like NAD is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, thus assuring that the resources cannot be put to their highest-valued use. Therefore, determining the allocation of resources through the political process decreases economic efficiency. Thus, NAD will actually cost jobs and reduce the standard of living of the very workers NAD’s supporters claim to benefit!
government
North American Development Bank
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 21:4
I would also like to remind my colleagues that there is no constitutional authorization for Congress to fund organizations like the NAD. If my colleagues are not convinced by the constitutional argument, I would hope they would consider the wisdom of expanding the scope of taxpayer support of programs like the NAD at a time when the government is facing massive deficits and Congress is scrambling to find the money to pay for national priorities.
government
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
government
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
government
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:6
The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain “digital technology.” In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006 that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufactures and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government mandated price increase.
government
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 22:7
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.
government
The Child Health Care Affordability Act
24 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 23:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:2
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not? It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:3
I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.” In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while Democrats seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:4
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:5
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year. Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory. The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today.
government
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 24:6
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.
government
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 25:5
It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex.
government
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:2
The 9/11 Commission soon will release its report after months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake. The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal little we don’t already know, while ignoring the most important lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland. Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars spent by government agencies, whose job it is to provide security and intelligence for our country, failed.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:3
A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the future, but one should never pretend that government bureaucracies can be made efficient. It is the very nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient. Spending an inordinate amount of time finger pointing will distract from the real lessons of 9/11. Which agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main purpose of the investigation.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:5
Everyone on the Commission assumes that 9/11 resulted from a lack of government action. No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings, brought to light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government. Possibly in the final report we will discuss this, but to date no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of course — though elusive — a more efficient one.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:6
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:21
I’m sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, or all of them for failure to communicate with each other. This will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us. It’s likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency. Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:25
How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies? The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather than those of rural America. They all assumed that the government was in charge of airline security—and unfortunately, by law, it was. Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking. Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumption, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security. Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:27
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky. Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:28
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism—practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years—as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit.
government
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.
government
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:43
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar’s value, and a faltering economy. Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans—except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess—if this policy of profligate spending continues. Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:3
The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:5
Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:10
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:11
I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:12
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:13
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of Government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:15
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:16
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the Drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.
government
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 31:4
But this resolution is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though this is the pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an enthusiastic endorsement of our nation-building activities in Iraq. This resolution “expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives…with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.” Also this resolution praises the “mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it…” At least the resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise.
government
Don’t Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 32:4
It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?
government
H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons
17 May 2004 2004 Ron Paul 34:4
It is somewhat ironic that vie are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the U.S. government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:4
It is a good idea to pay close attention to these criteria, as they tell the real tale of this new program. First, what does “investing in people” mean? It is probably safe to assume that “investing in people” does not mean keeping taxes low and government interference to a minimum so that individuals can create wealth through private economic activity. So, in short, this program will reward socialist-style governance.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:5
In fact, this program will do much more harm than good. MCA will hurt recipient country economies. Sending US aid money into countries that are pursuing sound economic policies will not help these economies. On the contrary, an external infusion of money to governments meeting the economic criteria will actually obscure areas where an economy is inefficient and unproductive. This assistance will slow down necessary reform by providing a hidden subsidy to unproductive sectors of the economy. We thus do no favors for the recipient country in the long term with this harmful approach.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:6
MCA is a waste of taxpayer money. Countries that pursue sound economic policies will find that international financial markets provide many times the investment capital necessary for economic growth. MCA funds will not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what private capital can bring to bear in an economy with promise and potential. And this capital will be invested according to sound investment strategies - designed to make a profit - rather than allocated according to the whim of government bureaucrats.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:8
MCA encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it will force economically devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations: if the private sector is to see any of the money it will have to be in partnership with government. There should be no doubt that these foreign governments will place additional requirements on the private firms in order to qualify for funding. Who knows how much of this money will be wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power. The MCA invites political corruption by creating a slush fund at the control of foreign governments.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:9
MCA encourages a socialist approach to health care in recipient countries. In rewarding a top-down government-controlled approach to health care, the program ignores the fact that this model has failed miserably wherever it has been applied. Ask anyone in the former communist countries how they liked their government healthcare system.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:10
Finally, MCA is another tool to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Already we see that one of the countries slated to receive funds is the Republic of Georgia, where former cronies of dictator Eduard Shevardnadze staged a coup against him last year and have since then conducted massive purges of the media and state institutions, have jailed thousands in phony “anti-corruption” campaigns, and have even adopted their own political party flag as the new flag of the country. The current government in Georgia does not deserve a dime of aid from the United States.
government
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
May 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 35:11
Though the Millennium Challenge Account is advertised as a brand new approach to foreign aid - foreign aid that really works - it is in fact expensive and counter-productive, and will be very unlikely to affect real change in the countries it purports to help. The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, to re-embrace the kind of economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, no foreign meddling. Demonstrating the effectiveness of limited government in creating wealth would be the greatest gift we could send overseas.
government
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed members to serve in this body. I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people.
government
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:2
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years (while Senators run for statewide office every six years) means that members of the House are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”
government
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
government
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of the House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812, nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, DC neighbor Virginia was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government- yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.
government
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:6
Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering supporting H.J.Res. 83 will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a victory over republican government.
government
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly. For a decade, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader-to-be in a new Iraq. Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than 100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be leader of a new Iraqi government.
government
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:2
But something happened on the way to the coronation. The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord. But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet. And that’s the problem. Under the conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a government, or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a nationalistic Iraqi people.
government
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:13
The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations. It may seem possible for the moment because we have been afforded the historically unique privilege of printing the world’s reserve currency. Foreigners have been only too willing to take our depreciating dollars for their goods. Economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation. Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed. Those who hold these trillion plus dollars can hold us hostage if it’s ever in their interest. It may be that economic law and hostility toward the United States will combine to precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the dollar.
government
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:15
It’s time we reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and strategic independence. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms. Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is far better than sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.
government
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:17
This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq. We should suggest and encourage each of the three groups- the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds- to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they want to associate with a central government.
government
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.
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:2
I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on “. . . a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . .” I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:4
It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:5
This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self- government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:8
The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:9
One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation when we where flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, ‘Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.’ ”
government
Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan
9 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 38:12
I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan’s family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.
government
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4520 today because the tax cuts contained in the bill outweigh the unfortunate but inevitable subsidies also included. I promise my constituents that I will vote for all tax cuts and against all new spending. So when faced with a bill that contains both, my decision is based on whether the bill cuts taxes overall, i.e. whether its ultimate impact will be to reduce or increase federal revenues. This legislation does reduce revenues, and therefore takes a small step towards reducing the size of the federal government. So while I certainly object to some parts of the bill, especially the tobacco bailout, I do support tax cuts.
government
Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the United States is “strongly committed” to the security of Israel. I find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this legislation promises that the United States “remains committed to . . . Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.” So we are pledging to defend Israel’s borders while we are not even able to control our own borders. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on fulfilling our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders?
government
Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies
June 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 41:3
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government.
government
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
government
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:3
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
government
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. Speaker, I support HR 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for HR 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less constitutional government?
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty Amendment (H.J.Res. 15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal government to those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:6
If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also eliminate the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to inflate the currency. Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the hidden tax of inflation.
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:7
In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian-conservative from Iowa, eloquently addressed the flaws in thinking that budget process reform absent the political will to cut spending would reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting Mr. Gross:
government
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:8
Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain solvent. Every Member knows this Government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure.
government
Praising Private Space Exploration
June 25, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 44:4
Their success should also be read as a cautionary tale for all of us in government. If only the United States had a taxation policy that limited government and thereby freed up more private capital, there is no telling how many more like Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, and Michael Melvill would be able to do great things to the benefit all of mankind. This not just in space exploration, but in medical research, alternative energy research, and any number of the problems that continue to perplex mankind. Private enterprise depends on results and success and therefore private capital is always targeted much more wisely than is monies confiscated by governments.
government
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 46:8
I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.
government
UNESCO
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 47:9
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.
government
UNESCO
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 47:10
But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue.
government
Marinol And Terrorism
7 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 48:3
I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.
government
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:1
All government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most.
government
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:8
Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes. It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid. Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation. Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation.
government
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:10
Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone. In fact it is the most sinister seductive “tax” of them all. Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end. It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.
government
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.
government
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:14
The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.
government
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:17
The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer.
government
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 1
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 57:7
Now, it may be said by those who have promoted the Millennium Challenge Account, that is exactly what we are trying to address. We want to reward countries that are moving in the direction of free markets. Now, that is a nice notion, but it cannot work. It is impossible because when we give money to a government, it is politicized. It becomes bureaucratic, and it has to be handed out to special interests.
government
Millennium Challenge Account — Part 2
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 59:2
Let me follow up on the point I made earlier about the good intentions of a program like this to promote free market changes in certain countries, but, unfortunately, this backfires because once the money gets in the hands of the government we then require them to develop partnerships or alliances with businesses, which is exactly the opposite of free markets. This is closer to crony capitalism or fascism when we combine government money with business interests.
government
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.
government
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:6
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.
government
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:9
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.
government
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
government
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:8
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
government
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:9
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church- not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
Opposes Commemorating 9/11
9 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 66:4
Many of my colleagues like to repeat the mantra that “freedom is under attack” in the United States. Well, they are right. Freedom is under attack in the United States, but not only from foreign terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that rushes to pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act, that guts civil liberties in the United States. Freedom is under attack from those who are rushing to create a national biometric identification card and internal check-points, which will force innocent Americans to prove to government authorities that they are not terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy at an unprecedented pace. Freedom is under attack from a foreign policy that generates millions of enemies across the globe.
government
Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 1
9 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 67:10
The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective standards.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government throughout history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:2
Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the inevitable corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution. The notion of separate States and local governments championed by the followers of Jefferson was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following ratification of the Constitution.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:3
Early on the supporters of strong centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism, mercantilism and subsidies for corporate interests.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:4
Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:5
The Civil War will finally change the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:6
Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:7
We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative and the judicial branches. Our legislative leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty and our republican form of government.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:9
The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty, but our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing and regulating. The complacent electorate who are led to believe their interests and needs are best served by a huge bureaucratic welfare state convince themselves that enormous Federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with on another day.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:10
The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain their confidence in the benefits of liberty and demand it from their elected leaders, Congress will act appropriately.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:11
The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly and return our Nation to its proper republican origins. The result would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and a world made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire. No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside of the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution.
government
The Constitution
23 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 70:14
I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve the next partisan victory; the real question is whether or not we will once again accept the clear restraints placed in the power of the national government by the Constitution. Obviously, the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important “election” of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it is worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant constitution with which we have been so blessed.
government
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.
government
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.
government
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.
government
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 71:5
Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
government
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:2
H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun registration in other countries has created government lists of who owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one’s own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family even in his own home.
government
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.
government
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:2
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.
government
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
government
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:5
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
government
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
government
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 73:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act. This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care. As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors. This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain. These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:4
Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has created the illusion of some success in the war on drugs. Investigating drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work. In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices and prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication.
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing. Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success. All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice.
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:7
HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy. A patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor. In contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission!
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:8
Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it. Why should someone be prevented from denying the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant?
government
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 74:9
One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law establishing a medical ID for every American. Under the guise of “protecting privacy,” the Health and Human Services’ so-called “medical privacy” regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records — without your consent! Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy.
government
Reject Draft Slavery
October 5, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 75:9
A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all tempts to bring back the draft.
government
No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids
October 6, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 76:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans .
government
No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids
October 6, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 76:3
The commission recommends the government implement universal or mandatory mental- health screening in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to such screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive,” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin against their parents’ wishes.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:5
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:12
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:13
This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending United States’ taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media, which inexplicably are referred to as “independent media.” This is an unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally, does anyone believe that citizens of countries where the US subsidizes certain media outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a certain editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to foreign media funded by the US government as “independent media.” The US government should never be in the business of funding the media, either at home or abroad.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:14
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.
government
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Crane. During his 35 years in Congress, Phil has been one of the House’s most consistent defenders of low taxes, free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty. I count myself among the numerous elected officials and activists in the free-market movement who have been inspired by his example.
government
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 78:2
As a conservative professor, author, and activist, Phil was already a nationally known conservative leader before he ran for Congress. Two of his books, “The Democrat’s Dilemma” and “The Sum of Good Government” stand out as conservative classics that educated and motivated many conservative activists. Among the attributes that have made Phil a hero to the free-market movement is his understanding of sound economics. Phil is one of the few members of Congress who is well versed in the teachings of great free-market teachers such as Ludwig von Misses. This country would be much better off if more representatives understood economics as well as Phil Crane.
government
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 78:4
When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal government, I was pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.
government
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 78:6
As his distinguished congressional career draws to a close, I hope all who value free-markets, individual liberty, and limited government will join me in thanking Phil Crane for his work on behalf of freedom.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:2
The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal government’s debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:3
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:4
The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:6
Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect government spending will exceed this new limit next year!
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:7
Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt instruments?
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 79:9
The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.
government
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 80:4
At a time when we have just raised the debt-ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the US assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the US determines.
government
Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War
November 19, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 80:5
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:19
During the Bush administration gold surged 70%, as the dollar lost 30% of its value. A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it’s argued that it helps our exporters. People who work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the money supply by our government officials.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:22
It’s important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion. These obligations obviously cannot be met. This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000!
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:24
There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.” The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security. This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession — and do little to enhance homeland security.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:28
We’re more likely to see entitlements and domestic spending continue to increase. There are zero plans for reigning in the Department of Education, government medical care, farm subsidies, or federal housing programs. Don’t expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be challenged. One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the last four years, with much of the tax money spent on “arts” ironically being used to attack family values.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:32
No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government. The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:33
President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy: “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist attack.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:34
There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings. Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:36
Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis. But liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and now president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching. He talks of, “A kind of global balance of financial terror” that we should be concerned about. He goes on to say: “there is surely something off about the world’s greatest power being the world’s greatest debtor. In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?” An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks “now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.”
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:47
First : The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented. And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:52
Sixth : What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:57
A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region.
government
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:74
7. Those who understand the most important function of our national government is to provide strong national defense should realize that having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. Chairman: President Bush said last week that, “Any election (in Ukraine), if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence.” I agree with the president wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it seems that several US government agencies saw things differently and sent US taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in an attempt to influence the outcome.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:2
We do not know exactly how many millions — or tens of millions — of dollars the United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — both American and Ukrainian — millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:4
How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know thus far is that the US government, through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the US-based Freedom House.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:5
PAUCI then sent US Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:6
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Centre for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the US Government through PAUCI, but on its website you will find that the front page in the English section features a prominent orange ribbon, the symbol of Yushchenko’s party and movement. Reading further on, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board!
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:7
And this NGO is not the only one the US government funds that is openly supportive of Viktor Yushchenko. The Western Ukraine Regional Training Center, as another example, features a prominent USAID logo on one side of its website’s front page and an orange ribbon of the candidate Yushchenko’s party and movement on the other. By their proximity, the message to Ukrainian readers is clear: the US government supports Yushchenko.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:8
The Center for Political and Law Reforms, another Ukrainian NGO funded by the US government, features a link at the top of its website’s front page to Viktor Yushchenko’s personal website. Yushchenko’s picture is at the top of this US government funded website.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:9
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the US government “for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide.” According to the organization’s website, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:11
It is clear that a significant amount of US taxpayer dollars went to support one candidate in Ukraine. Recall how most of us felt when it became known that the Chinese government was trying to funnel campaign funding to a US presidential campaign. This foreign funding of American elections is rightly illegal. Yet, it appears that that is exactly what we are doing abroad. What we do not know, however, is just how much US government money was spent to influence the outcome of the Ukrainian election.
government
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:13
That is what I find so disturbing: there are so many cut-out organizations and sub-grantees that we have no idea how much US government money was really spent on Ukraine, and most importantly how it was spent. Perhaps the several examples of blatant partisan support that we have been able to uncover are but an anomaly. I believe Congress and the American taxpayers have a right to know. I believe we urgently need an investigation by the Government Accounting Office into how much US government money was spent in Ukraine and exactly how it was spent. I would hope very much for the support of Chairman Hyde, Chairman Lugar, Deputy Assistant Secretary Tefft, and my colleagues on the Committee in this request.
government
Introducing The Parental Consent Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 1:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State Governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental- health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally- funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid Federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:4
Congressionally mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provision buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician- patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:9
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:10
In addition to forbidding the Federal Government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the Federal Government from blackmailing States into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding Federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of Federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe States into obeying Federal dictates.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:11
Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:14
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:15
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:16
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 3:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 3:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 3:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
Introducing The Social Security Preservation Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 4:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:9
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:10
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:11
Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:14
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:15
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:16
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy'” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:7
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to examine them, there is little that victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:13
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver’s licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:18
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It is no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:19
All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our securities. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in our foreign policy that incites those who declare war against us, no amount of patdowns at airports will suffice.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:20
Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs and the loss of liberty if in the next 20 years airplanes are never again employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA’s bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer. TSA cannot protect us from another attack, and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us more obedient and complacent toward government intrusion in our lives.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:21
The airplane mess has been compounded by other problems which we fail to recognize. Most assume that government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent on the government.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:22
After 9/11, we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and political takeover of the TSA, which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:23
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fueled the Transportation Secretary’s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discriminating against young Muslim males. Instead, TSA seemingly targeted white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying antidiscrimination laws.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:26
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from the airlines are used to force sensitivity training on pilots, who do their very best under the circumstances to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals.
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:34
What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:42
What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:57
What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war?
government
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:61
Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide for national security. And national security has been severely undermined.
government
National ID
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 7:4
As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said “the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.”
government
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 9:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.
government
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 9:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
government
Introducing The Hope Plus Scholarship Act
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 12:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources — away from classroom instruction.
government
Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 15:3
Seniors’ right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration’s refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling for Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program!
government
Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 15:5
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act.
government
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 16:3
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
government
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 16:6
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.
government
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ayn Rand, these comments. Ayn Rand has long inspired advocates of personal liberty and economic freedom. These ideals of individual responsibility and limited constitutional government are urgently needed in our Nation today.
government
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 17:3
Ayn Rand was a champion of capitalism and of individual liberty. She had experienced the impact of communism in her native Russia and was an outspoken opponent of both communism and of socialism. She advocated personal responsibility and an objective code of moral behavior. Ayn Rand’s fictional and non-fictional works promoted the ideal of the self-reliant individual who values reason, production and self-esteem in their personal lives and rejects the enslavement of others to advance one’s own personal goals. A proud immigrant, who chose America, she perceptively grasped the nature of our Constitution: “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals . . . it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of government . . . it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
government
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by Federal regulation.
government
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State-licensed pharmacists.
government
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any Federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:3
The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.
government
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:4
Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.
government
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:5
Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.
government
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:8
This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.
government
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:9
There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?
government
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 20:6
The Law of the Sea Treaty will also create, for the first time in history, an international body with the authority to collect taxes from American citizens. It is truly a U.N. global tax. This will come about as a fee on private enterprise and nation states from seabed mining, offshore oil platforms, and other raw material recovery activities. These fees will first be paid by the governments of the signatory states, which will then have the burden of collecting the monies back from the private enterprises engaged in seabed mining activities.
government
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People’s Republic of China. Instead, the people’s airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:5
Congress should reject H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate Federal standards, H.R. 310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power. H.R. 310 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 310 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is “obscene” or “indecent.” While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is “hate speech.” Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include hate speech. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 310 also hold views that would likely be classified as “indecent hate speech.”
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:10
If the government is going to “censor” what they think is right and wrong. . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys . . . start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence?
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:11
I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for the government to do it.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:14
Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from “indecent” broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people’s morals; it can only reduce liberty.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.
government
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 22:17
These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.
government
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits.
government
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 23:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen.
government
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 23:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: the federal government may actually actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
government
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 23:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration. How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
government
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 24:2
It is unfortunate that tragic occurrences like these are all too often used by those who wish to push a particular foreign policy. We don’t really know who killed Mr. Hariri. Maybe an agent of the Syrian government killed him. Then again any of several other governments or groups in the Middle East or even beyond could be responsible. But already we are hearing from those who want to use this murder to justify tightening sanctions against Syria, forcing Syrian troops to leave Lebanon immediately, or even imposing U.S. military intervention against Syria. Just yesterday we heard that the U.S. ambassador to Syria has been withdrawn.
government
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri
16 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 24:3
The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon’s tragic recent history, and its slow return from the chaos of the civil war — a revival in which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role. We should remember, however, that it was the Lebanese government itself that requested assistance from Syria in 1976, to help keep order in the face of a civil war where Maronite Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze. This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So, while foreign occupation of any country against that country’s will is to be condemned, it is not entirely clear that this is the case with Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. What most won’t say here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Who is to say that this is not the best approach to avoid a return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced that we must immediately blame Syria for this attack and we must “do something” to avenge something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States.
government
Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee
1 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 25:2
The United Nations has for decades been looking for a way to develop and promote a system of direct taxation on American citizens. It is bad enough that the United States has wasted more than $30 billion thus far on this corrupt and inept organization. U.N. bureaucrats want to find a way to put their hands directly in the taxpayer’s pocket and do away with the U.S. Government middle man.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:3
I have no doubt that the people of the States are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each State’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 841 before Congress today was drafted with input from State elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 841 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed Members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed Members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:4
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the Federal Government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52:
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:5
As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:8
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for Members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.
government
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 841 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:2
The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on the United Nations and has received in return only contempt from an organization that scoffs at traditional notions of limited government and sovereignty.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:3
Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion’s share of the UN budget, UN bureaucrats are still not satisfied. They want direct access to U.S. taxpayer money with out the U.S. government middleman. A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority” created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to — for the first time in history — impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and UN taxation of Americans will become a reality.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter” as a “constituent treaty,” leading international political authorities state that — “[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares “that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.” The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is “similar . . . to national constitutional law,” proclaiming that “because of its status as a constitution for the world community,” the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for “implied powers” to carry out the United Nations’ “comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.” Id. at 27
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “Legislatures have no power to ratify” a plan changing the form of government, only “the people” have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the “peoples” of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.
government
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 27:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
government
Reject the Latest Foreign Welfare Scheme
March 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We have absolutely no constitutional authority to establish a commission to “assist” parliaments throughout the world. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric surrounding this legislation, we should not fool ourselves. This is nothing more than yet another scheme to funnel United States tax dollars to foreign governments. It is an international welfare scheme and an open door to more U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries.
government
Reject the Latest Foreign Welfare Scheme
March 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 28:3
Mr. Speaker, this bill will do more than just take money from Americans. This commission will enable members of Congress and congressional staff employees to travel the world meddling in the affairs of foreign governing bodies. It is counterproductive to tell other nations how they should govern themselves, as even if we come loaded with dollars to hand out, our meddling is always resented by the local population -- just as we would resent a foreign government telling us how to govern ourselves. Don’t we have enough of our own problems to solve without going abroad in search of foreign parliaments to aid?
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 30:7
We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops?
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 30:9
The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many times since then over the world.
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 30:10
Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us.
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 30:17
I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, and think almost what is in our best interests? I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his memoirs several years later.
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:8
It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed Hariri.
government
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:9
But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad.
government
The Deficit
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 33:3
But I would like to make a suggestion that we are not facing primarily a budgetary crisis or a budgetary problem. I see this more as a philosophic problem, dealing more with the philosophy of government rather than thinking that we can tinker with the budget, dealing with this as a tactical problem when really it is a strategic problem. So as long as we endorse the type of government that we have and there is a willingness for the people as well the Congress to finance it, we are going to continue with this process and the frustrations are going to grow because it is just not likely that these deficits will shrink.
government
The Deficit
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 33:11
But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is our problem. I think our other problem is our country and our people and our Congresses and our Senators have accepted the notion of faith in government, faith in the State, that the State can provide these great services and do it efficiently.
government
The Deficit
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 33:12
Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called “War is the Health of the State,” and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all government should be: the preservation of liberty.
government
The Deficit
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 33:14
And it is the philosophy of government and our philosophy on money that encourages these problems. And the current account deficits and this huge foreign indebtedness that are encouraged by our ability to maintain a reserve currency, it is going to lead to a crisis where this spending will have to come in check.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:2
This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:4
In a free society the doctor and the patient-- or his or her designated spokesperson-- make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:5
This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important. It is not an esoteric subject; it’s a real life involved and a personal issue we can’t ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with government now responsible for most of the medical bills.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:6
We’re rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This has occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:8
Eventually, government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I won’t hold my breath.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:12
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:14
Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty. Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and more often than not does exactly the opposite.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:16
Conservatives on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life. There’s little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda even when it’s not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so. Take for instance the funding of faith-based charities. The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at the state level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not be the prerogative of the federal government.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:18
The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:19
Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years. But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators nor any part of the government-- only the patient, the patient’s family, and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a federal case of the dying process.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:20
A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life-- witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty-- witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace-- witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:22
Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government ordered euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs. This is true whether it’s a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an emergency room visit for a broken toe. And in addition deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a paper money system.
government
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:24
Hopefully, this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.
government
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:3
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.
government
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:6
Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.
government
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:10
Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?
government
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:32
In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.
government
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:33
Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.
government
Tribute To Dr. Andrew Messenger, A True Friend Of Liberty
6 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 37:9
When most men embrace the rewards retirement offers, Dr. Messenger pushes on to make a difference in the lives of his countrymen. Dr. Messenger’s support of the Leadership Institute gives young people and working professionals the practical tools necessary to advance liberty and protect freedom. Too often freedom has few friends on our college campuses, in our state houses, and in our capitol. Dr. Messenger is providing everyday citizens with the resources necessary to defend the dream of limited government George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers created when they wrote our constitution.
government
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
government
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, in the name of a truly laudable cause, preventing abortion and protecting parental rights, today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath, which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across State lines for ignoble purposes.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:3
Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, article I, section 8, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the 10th amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, section 2, clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
government
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 748.
government
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 45:3
As the resolution itself cites, one top UN official, Jaques Klein, has already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating “Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer.” But the resolution concludes that “Congress urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial…” So it is probably safe to guess what kind of “trial” this will be - a Soviet-style show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for anyone, regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of Liberia and Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor.
government
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1185, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation increases the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
government
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 46:2
I primarily object to the provisions in H.R. 1185 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These “premiums,” which are actually taxes, are the primary source of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks that experience difficulties meeting commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions that follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses.
government
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 46:4
Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This certainly is the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman (John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee) pointed out in a study for the CATO Institute, the FDIC’s history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC’s poor track record in protecting individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking facilities. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators’ records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss.
government
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 46:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned when the federal government is ensuring banks following sound practices and has insured their deposits?
government
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 46:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money, and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.
government
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act, (H.R. 1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding its constitutional limitations in the name of “getting tough on crime.” Gang crime is certainly a serious issue in many parts of the country. However, unless criminal gangs are engaging in counterfeiting, treason, or piracy, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the criminal activities of gangs. In fact, by creating new federal crimes related to gang activities, but unrelated to one of the federal crimes enumerated in the Constitution, the new federal crimes and enhanced penalties in this bill usurp state and local authority.
government
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death penalty. While I recognize that nothing in the Constitution forbids Federal, State, or local governments from imposing a death penalty, I have come to the conclusion that a consistent pro-life position requires opposition to any legislation imposing a Federal death penalty for unconstitutional Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate Federal action to stop individual States from imposing a death penalty, I simply oppose compounding the damage done by creating new Federal crimes by making those crimes subject to a Federal death penalty.
government
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 47:8
H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority by creating new Federal crimes, thus further burdening the already overwhelmed Federal judiciary system and taking another step toward upending our constitutional system by turning the States into administrative districts of the Federal Government. This bill also creates unwise mandatory minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing decisions of judges and juries. Finally, H.R. 1279 raises serious moral issues by expanding the use of the Federal death penalty. Therefore, I must oppose H.R. 1279 and urge my colleagues to do same.
government
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enhance the health and liberty of American citizens by introducing the Consumers Access to Health Information Act of 2005. This act ensures consumers can receive truthful information about how foods and dietary supplements can cure, mitigate, and prevent specific diseases. The act does this simply by correcting an erroneous court decision and thus restoring congressional intent to allow consumers to have access to information regarding the health benefits of dietary supplements without government interference.
government
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers’ right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
government
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:7
At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent Americans from learning about how they increase their chances of staying healthy by making simple changes in their diets. However, this bill is about more than physical health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises over these health claims has also been thought to be particularly repugnant to the First Amendment. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not they will use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access to Health Information Act.
government
No Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research
May 24, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive matters facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
government
No Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research
May 24, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 51:2
The question that should concern Congress today is: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research? The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I must vote against HR 810.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
8 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
8 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 54:2
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
8 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 54:5
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:3
I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe that the process of the WTO and world government is a good way to do it. I do not think the WTO achieves its purpose, and I do not think it is permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, I strongly argue the case that, through the process, that we should defend the position of the Congress which gives us the responsibility of dealing with international trade, with international foreign commerce. That is our responsibility. We cannot transfer that responsibility to the President, and we cannot transfer that responsibility to an international government body.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:4
Therefore, there are many of us who ally together to argue that case, although we may have a disagreement on how much tariffs we should have, because the Congress should decide that. We could have no tariffs; we could have a uniform tariff, which the Founders believed in and permitted; or we could have protective tariffs, which some of those individuals on our side defend, and I am not that much interested in. But the issue that unifies us is who should determine it. For me, the determination should be by the U.S. Congress and not to defer to an international government body.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:5
Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those who believe in limited government are so anxious to deliver this to another giant international body. For instance, the WTO employs over 600 people. Free trade, if you are interested in free trade, all you have to do is write a sentence or two, and you can have free trade. You do not need 600 bureaucrats. It costs $133 million to manage the WTO every year. Of course, we pay the biggest sum, over $25 million for this, just to go and get permission or get our instructions from the WTO.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:12
So my message is to appeal to those who believe in limited government, free markets, free trade and the Constitution. I appeal to those who want to use tariffs in a protective way because they defend the process. But I am really appealing to the conservatives who claim they believe in free trade, because I do not believe what we have here is truly free trade.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:16
So this is big government, pure and simple. It does not endorse free trade whatsoever. It endorses managed trade; and too often it is managed for the privileges of the very large, well-positioned companies. It does not recognize the basic principle that we should defend as a free society individuals ought to have the right to spend their money the way they want. That is what free trade is, and you can do that unilaterally without pain and suffering.
government
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:19
So if you are a believer in big government and world government and you believe in giving up the prerogatives of the Congress and not assuming our responsibility, I would say, go with the WTO. But if you believe in freedom, if you believe in the Constitution and if you really believe in free trade, I would say we should vote to get out of the WTO.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:10
At the beginning of an offensive war the people are supportive because of the justifications given by government authorities, who want the war for ulterior reasons. But the demands to sacrifice liberty at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring hollow after the cost and policy shortcomings become evident. Initially, the positive propaganda easily overshadows the pain of the small number who must fight and suffer injury.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:12
In almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that needs to be vanquished to gain the support of the people. In our recent history, just since 1941, our government has entirely ignored the requirement that war be fought only after a formal congressional declaration-- further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war progresses poorly. Respect for the truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the people for the war effort. Professional propagandists, by a coalition of the media and government officials, beat the war drums. The people follow out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and weak in the defense of our nation-- even when there is no national security threat at all.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:18
As the problems mount, the falsehoods and distortions on which the war was based become less believable and collectively resented. The government and the politicians who pursued the policy lose credibility. The tragedy, however, is that once even the majority discovers the truth, much more time is needed to change the course of events. This is the sad part.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:27
So far the American people have not yet felt the true burden of the costs of this war. Even with 1,700 deaths and 13,000 wounded, only a small percentage of Americans have suffered directly-- but their pain and suffering is growing and more noticeable every day. Taxes have not been raised to pay the bills for the current war, so annual deficits and national debt continue to grow. This helps delay the pain of paying the bills, but the consequences of this process are starting to be felt. Direct tax increases, a more honest way to finance foreign interventionism, would serve to restrain those who so cavalierly take us to war. The borrowing authority of governments permit wars to be started and prolonged which otherwise would be resisted if the true cost were known to the people from the beginning.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:29
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the Fed accommodated the Wilsonians bent on entering WWI by inflating and deficit financing that ill-begotten involvement. Though it produced the 1921 depression and many other problems since, the process subsequently has become institutionalized in financing our militarism in the 20 th Century and already in the 21 st . Without the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air, our government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing wartime spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary system, through which our government seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required to finance the effort.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:30
Being the issuer of the world’s premier currency allows for a lot more abuse than a country would have otherwise. World businesses, governments, and central banks accept our dollars as if they are as good as gold. This is a remnant of a time when the dollar was as good as gold. That is no longer the case. The trust is still there, but it’s a misplaced trust. Since the dollar is simply a paper currency without real value, someday confidence will be lost and our goose will no longer be able to lay the golden egg. That’s when reality will set in and the real cost of our extravagance, both domestic and foreign, will be felt by all Americans. We will no longer be able to finance our war machine through willing foreigners, who now gladly take our newly printed dollars for their newly produced goods and then loan them back to us at below market interest rates to support our standard of living and our war effort.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:31
The payment by American citizens will come as the dollar loses value, interest rates rise, and prices increase. The higher prices become the tax that a more honest government would have levied directly to pay for the war effort. An unpopular war especially needs this deception as a method of payment, hiding the true costs which are dispersed and delayed through this neat little monetary trick. The real tragedy is that this “inflation tax” is not evenly distributed among all the people, and more often than not is borne disproportionately by the poor and the middle class as a truly regressive tax in the worst sense. Politicians in Washington do not see inflation as an unfair seductive tax. Our monetary policy unfortunately is never challenged even by the proponents of low taxes who care so little about deficits, but eventually it all comes to an end because economic law overrides the politicians’ deceit.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:32
Already we are seeing signs on the horizon that this free ride for us is coming to an end. Price inflation is alive and well and much worse than government statistics show. The sluggish economy suggests that the super stimulation of easy credit over the last decades is no longer sufficient to keep the economy strong. Our personal consumption and government spending are dependent on borrowing from foreign lenders. Artificially high standards of living can mask the debt accumulation that it requires while needed savings remain essentially nil.
government
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:50
8. World government is no panacea for limiting war.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:6
Attending these issues were actions of legislatures, courts, and executive branches of government. Take the case of Cynthia Spina, the Illinois Forest Preserve policewoman who won a judgment against her employer after a six-year sexual-harassment lawsuit. Instead of netting $300,000 after paying $1 million to her attorney, she was taxed $400,000 by the IRS. The law that made such travesty possible was promulgated in 1996 that differentiate between types of damages. Gone was the concept of damages being a monetary amount determined by a jury as the amount necessary to bring a plaintiff back to equilibrium. Justice is now a taxable event.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:11
What we found was even more perverse. Spina’s debacle resulted because the attorney’s fee was charged as income to her, and then Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was applied. In tax court, Spina pleaded the unfairness with the judge, who sympathized with her but said his hands were tied by the law (a fine time to be a strict constructionist! I think it intuitively obvious to the casual observer that a US government that taxes a citizen more than the citizen receives is breaking a Constitutional proscription somewhere!).
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:17
That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption inspired by the Spina case. We had properly appealed to our government for help, and the government has now placed us in a position where our own best interests are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic, since the intent of most tort reform has been to encourage settlement). When a jury makes an award, the tax exposure will likely be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher the award, the greater our tax exposure. And we are middle-class citizens.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:21
Another major factor that should weigh in favor of plaintiffs and obviate taxes on awards is that courts, state legislatures, and Congress establish the rules under which a citizen seeks justice. A plaintiff going into court in pro per is in extreme jeopardy of losing over factors as innocuous as presenting the case in a form that violates local-court determined rules. When citizens are sued, they often have no choice but to retain the very best legal expertise possible. When they win their cases and are left with oppressive debt, they should have recourse to the courts for relief without incurring even more horrendous debt to the government. The idea is laughable that people would willingly choose to spend their hard-earned income and scarce time to be in court for recreation (i.e. the “pursuit of happiness”).
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:22
The concept of exemptions presents its own difficulties. By legislatively determining that some cases are entitled to favorable tax treatment over others, lawmakers are making judgments over the relative merits of cases in advance of either a judge or jury examining specific facts. On its face, such policy screams violation of Constitutional equal protection and equal access to the courts. Justice is no longer blind. And to the extent that such laws continue, the Federal government becomes complicit in chilling citizen participation on issues such as the ones in our case in California. Bad guys already know this, and they know that as a result, they can do bad things to good people with impunity. The combined branches of government have evolved those conditions.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:26
The real issues are: Should any legislature ever be deciding the relative merit of any civil dispute over any other civil dispute by creating rapacious tax laws and then establishing exemptions? (As soon as they do so, they create violations of equal protection and access.) Should the government ever be entitled to a share of what a jury has decided is the amount required to restore a plaintiff to equilibrium? (Every dollar taxed on an award is a dollar subtraction from that plaintiff’s restoration as determined by a jury after due deliberation over all facts pertinent to the case — justice becomes impossible as a practical and mathematical matter). Should attorneys’ fees be taxed to plaintiffs? (The government is going to tax that amount to the attorney. When the attorney is retained on a contingency basis, both attorney and plaintiff are entering into a transaction that is high risk with no gain for either unless they win at court. And, it is the courts, Congress, and state legislators that set the conditions under which requiring an attorney for any court proceeding is mandated as a practical matter for most citizens.)
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:29
Adopting the above leaves unsettled how to discourage frivolous cases. There are other ways to do that including award limits, and attorney fee caps. However, the solution cannot and must not include provisions that deny justice and impose further penalties on law-abiding citizens who appeal to their governments.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:32
Citizens that must contend with government taxes and tax collecting agencies of the government after prevailing in court are denied justice. Allowing them to negotiate to a reduced amount after the fact is neither justice nor a solution — it is a mockery and refutation of the most fundamental principles which gave birth to our great country and for which patriots gave their lives.
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:33
In contemplating concepts of taxing justice, it is appropriate to recall that plaintiffs seek court resolution as an alternative to violence; that they pay in advance for their “day in court” through normal taxes; that in entering the court, they demonstrate tremendous faith in their fellow citizens and government; that the aim of the court is to return prevailing plaintiffs to equilibrium; and that if plaintiffs are successful, they are entitled to an assumption of having brought a bona fide complaint. To require more is to delay justice, and in that regard, it is well to remember William Gladstone’s words: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
government
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:34
Or as Theodore Roosevelt said, “Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.” Leaving citizens stranded in bewildering circumstances that destroy the pursuit of happiness and is brought about by poorly thought out government action is wrong. Correcting quickly is right.
government
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 65:3
I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the government being able to get a list of books that the American people read. Now, if there is a special condition that exists where they want to know about a particular individual, nothing precludes a legitimate search warrant to find out exactly what this information is about. But I just think that it is totally unnecessary to have this.
government
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 65:4
This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C–SPAN; and after he left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government’s ability to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act, and she talked about it in general.
government
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
16 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 66:12
The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a move in the wrong direction.
government
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.
government
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 70:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our history. In fact, during World War II the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film, “Hemp for Victory,” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.
government
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 70:7
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed the founders of our nation, some of who grew hemp, surely would find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
government
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:9
Another point: The real problem that exists routinely on the House floor is the daily trashing of the Constitution by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 8. We should spend a lot more time following the rule of law, as defined by our oath of office, and a lot less on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expand the role of the federal government while undermining the States.
government
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:14
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.
government
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:22
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the federal government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.
government
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 75:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 75:3
Furthermore, the predominance of third- party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance policies, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
government
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program.
government
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 76:2
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand- wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new Federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
government
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 76:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!
government
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 77:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:5
Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 78:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
government
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 79:2
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the federal government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see!
government
Introducing The Child Health Care Affordability Act
27 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 80:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
government
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise with great reservations over this legislation. Why is the federal government involving itself in the sale of a private American company? Do we really believe we have this kind of authority?
government
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:4
I voted recently against allowing the EximBank to use U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite Chinese construction of nuclear power plants. I do not support subsidizing the Chinese government’s economic activities. But I also do not support the U.S. Congress involving itself in the private economic transactions of U.S. companies.
government
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 82:5
Some have raised concerns that the purchase of Unocal by a company tied to the Chinese government will create security problems for the United States. I would argue the opposite. International trade and economic activity tends to diminish, not increase tensions between countries. Increased economic relationships between the United States and China make military conflict much less likely, as it becomes in neither country’s interest to allow tensions to get out of hand.
government
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read ”Your dietary supplements: Under attack again“ by Henry Lamb, which I am inserting into the record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to American consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The United Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods and medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States government agreed to a final version of Codex’s standards on dietary supplements which, if implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans’ ability to obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American bureaucracy may be hoping to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve through the domestic law-making process--the power to restrict consumers’ access to dietary supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World Trade Organization, which considers Codex ”guidelines“ the standard by which all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to ”harmonize“ our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex’s recommendations violates international trading standards! This could occur despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to the restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the European Union.
government
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:2
This article is typical of Henry Lamb’s work. For almost twenty years, beginning at an age when most Americans are contemplating retirement, Mr. Lamb has worked to expose and stop threats to American liberty, sovereignty, and prosperity. Mr. Lamb became involved in the battle for liberty when, as the CEO of a Tennessee construction company, he founded a state association of contractors to work against excessive regulations. In 1988, Henry Lamb founded the Environmental Conservation Organization to defend true environmentalism, which is rooted in the truth that there is no better steward of the environment than a private property owner, from those who used the environment as a cover for their radical statist agendas. Since 1992, Mr. Lamb and ECO have focused on the threat to economic liberty and self-government posed by the radical global environmental agenda.
government
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:5
(By Henry Lamb) The Codex Alimentarius Commission sounds like one of those shadowy, sinister organizations conjured up by one-world-government nuts to scare people.
government
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:8
”When formulating national policies and plans with regard to food, governments should take into account the need of all consumers for food security and should support and, as far as possible, adopt standards from the ..... Codex Alimentarius. .....“
government
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign relations authorization bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we feel we must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas. Imagine what the Founders of this country would say if they were among us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution and for the founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the view that with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign governments. But as history shows us, we cannot. The trillions of dollars we have shipped overseas as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much to show for it, however.
government
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:7
Another amendment will create a chilling “Active Response Corps,” to be made up of US government bureaucrats and members of “non-governmental organizations.” Its purpose will be to “stabilize” countries undergoing “democratic transition.” This means that as soon as the NED-funded “people’s revolutionaries” are able to seize power in the streets, US funded teams will be deployed to make sure they retain power. All in the name of democracy, of course.
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. mBR> The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. PAUL: Add at the end the following: mBR> SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO LAWFUL POLITICAL ACTIVITY. It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should not investigate an American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of the citizen’s membership in a non-violent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity. The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:3
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment intended to modestly improve the PATRIOT Act, and let me just state exactly what it does. “It is the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not investigate any American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of citizen’s membership in a nonviolent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity.”
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:7
Mr. Chairman, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:11
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities would still have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that removed the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.
government
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:12
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorists’ financing.
government
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
government
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
government
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:5
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.
government
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:6
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing.
government
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 90:2
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese government. Take the demand that the government “revalue” its currency, for example. First, there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have very little effect on China’s trade surplus with the United States. As Barron’s magazine pointed out recently, “the Japanese yen’s value has more than tripled since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan’s trade surplus remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have any greater impact?”
government
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 90:3
As was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, with the yuan tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar dropping, China could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of keeping the yuan down. Fewer Treasury bond purchases by China, in turn, would drive bond prices down and boost yields--which, subsequently, would cause borrowing costs for residential and some corporate customers to increase. Does anyone want to guess what a sudden burst of the real estate bubble might mean for the shaky US economy? This is not an argument for the status quo , however, but rather an observation that there are often unforeseen consequences when we demand that foreign governments manipulate their currency to US “advantage.”
government
Introduction Of The Cures Can Be Found Act
26 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 91:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
government
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by Federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of Federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of Federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.
government
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 93:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.
government
Introducing The Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act, which restores to widowed Texas public school teachers the means to receive the same spousal Social Security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the Nation, have their spousal Social Security benefits reduced if they receive a government pension. This “Government Pension Offset” affects Texas teachers who work in school districts that do not participate in Social Security and even applies if the teacher in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full Social Security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!
government
Introducing The Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act
6 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 94:4
Passing the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act is a good first step toward treating teachers fairly. Of course, I remain committed to working to pass H.R. 147, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:7
Immediately after 9/11 the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and a lazy Congress. Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two. The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet today we find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq, and causing chaos there.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:19
Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it. This would make them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of war in the November election.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:24
The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations resolutions as justifications for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed an international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:27
Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:28
Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we can’t afford this war the better. We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:39
One of the original stated justifications for the war has been accomplished. Since 1998 the stated policy of the United States government was to bring about regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein. This has been done, but instead of peace and stability we have sown the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:43
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21 st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:46
The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:49
It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:51
The neo-conservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country was like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region, or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems this area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade.
government
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:70
Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of government with which we have been blessed. Today too many Americans support, at least in the early stages, the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom. They too often are confused by the rhetoric that our armies are needed to spread American goodness. Using force injudiciously, instead of spreading the worthy message of American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes our enemies, alienates our allies, and threatens personal liberties here at home while burdening our economy.
government
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered $51.8 billion disaster relief appropriation. Many have come to the floor today to discuss how we must help the victims of this terrible disaster and its aftermath. But why do they think that the best way to do so is simply to write a huge check to the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made — before and after the hurricane. Yet, in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed.
government
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 96:2
Mr. Speaker, considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the Federal and State level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money was simply sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last 10 days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non- governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.
government
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 96:4
Mr. Speaker, we see here once again the Federal Government attempting to impose a topdown solution to the disaster. No one is questioning from where this $52 billion will come. The answer, of course, is that the Federal Government is going to simply print the money up. There are no reductions in Federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:4
Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal Government in fighting these crimes — even when it is well intended — only hamstrings local and State law enforcement officers and courts and prevents them from effectively dealing with such criminals as the locals would have them dealt with — harshly and finally.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress could both honor the Constitution and help States and local governments protect children by using our power to limit Federal jurisdiction to stop Federal judges from preventing States and local governments from keeping these criminals off the streets. My colleagues should remember that it was a Federal judge in a Federal court who ruled that the death penalty is inappropriate for sex offenders. Instead of endorsing a bill to let people know when a convicted child molester or rapist is in their neighborhood after being released, perhaps we should respect the authority of State courts and legislators to give child molesters and rapists the life or even death sentences, depending on the will of the people of those States.
government
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005 2005 Ron Paul 97:6
Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under the direct and total control of the States as called for in the Constitution.
government
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 98:1
The tragic scenes of abject poverty in New Orleans revealed on national TV by Katrina’s destruction were real eye-openers for many. These scenes prompted two emotional reactions. One side claims Katrina proved there was not enough government welfare, and its distribution was based on race. The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into the very federal agency that failed (FEMA), while giving it extraordinary new police powers. Both sides support more authoritarianism, more centralization, and even the imposition of martial law in times of natural disasters.
government
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 98:11
My suggestion to my colleagues: Any new expenditures must have offsets greater in amount than the new programs. Foreign military and foreign aid expenditures must be the first target. The Federal Reserve must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially lowering interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows government and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining incentives to save. This in turn undermines capital investment while exaggerating consumption. If this policy doesn’t change, the dollar must fall and the current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards collapses.
government
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 98:13
If Congress does not show some sense of financial restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle class to become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more authoritarian-- while the liberty of the people is diminished. The illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and warfare states serves the people must come to an end.
government
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government policies that artificially inflate the price of gas. As I need not remind my colleagues, the American people have been hard hit in recent months by skyrocketing gas prices. In some parts of the country, gas prices have risen to as much as $4 per gallon.
government
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:3
Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies.
government
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:4
Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and policies that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly through regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries.
government
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:5
Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline’s cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the Federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3 per gallon. During the suspension, the Federal Government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the Federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses.
government
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 99:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government policies that increase the cost of gasoline.
government
Introducing The Evacuees Tax Relief Act
17 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2005, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to August of this year, so it is available to Katrina and Rita evacuees.
government
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:10
We involved ourselves in this civil struggle within the Muslim community. For decades, we supported various secular Arab governments throughout the region, always in opposition to religious fundamentalists. The U.S. never waivered in its enthusiastic support of Israel over Arab-Muslim interests.
government
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 105:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a Federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among Federal, State, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the Federal Government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the State legislatures.
government
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 105:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional Federal powers to restrict State lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional Federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a Federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the Federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small business, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another State to escape flawed State tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive Federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of Federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.
government
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 105:6
In conclusion, while share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 554, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the Federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
government
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This act provides Federal assistance to local first responders for developing an interoperable means of communications. Ensuring first responders at the local, state, and Federal level have the ability to effectively communicate with each other should be one of the Federal Government’s top priorities. The ability of first responders to effectively communicate with each other, and with their counterparts at different levels of governments, is key to their ability to save lives in the crucial time immediately after a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
government
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 107:2
My bill helps first responders by establishing a Director of Interoperability and Compatibility to help develop a national strategy and architecture for an interoperable system, as well as to bring together Federal, State, local, and tribal officials to work on a coordinated effort to develop and coordinate efforts to implement an interoperable communications system. The bill also provides a grant program so state and local governments can receive Federal assistance for planning and designing an interoperable system, as well as in training first responders how to use the system.
government
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.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1461 increases the economic damage that will occur when the housing bubble bursts. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:2
One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over two billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:3
This implicit promise by the government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. This is why I am offering an amendment to cut off this line of credit. I hope my colleagues join me in protecting taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble bursts.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSEs’ managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:5
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs makes investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although he has endorsed many of the regulatory “solutions” being considered here today, Chairman Greenspan has implicitly admitted the subsidies are the true source of the problems with Fannie and Freddie.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:7
However, one of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that the market is superior at discovering and punishing fraud and other misbehavior than are government regulators. After all, the market discovered, and began to punish, the accounting irregularities of Enron before the government regulators did.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:10
Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an “independent regulator.” The Founders provided for three branches of government — an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:11
Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders’ opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1461 the regulator’s budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the sunshine act.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:12
Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a “world- class” regulator is ensuring the GSEs’ soundness, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:13
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:14
H.R. 1461 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program.
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:16
Instead of addressing government polices encouraging the misallocation of resources to the housing market, H.R. 1461 further introduces distortion into the housing market by expanding the authority of Federal regulators to approve the introduction of new products by the GSEs. Such regulation inevitability delays the introduction of new innovations to the market, or even prevents some potentially valuable products from making it to the market. Of course, these new regulations are justified in part by the GSEs’ government subsidies. We once again see how one bad intervention in the market (the GSEs’ government subsidies) leads to another (the new regulations).
government
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:17
In conclusion, H.R. 1461 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increases the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting of the housing bubble. This is because this bill creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces further distortions into the housing market via increased regulatory power. H.R. 1461 also violates the Constitution by creating yet another unaccountable regulator with quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers. Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bailout investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market.
government
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 109:4
I think Members can see there is a problem with our GSEs. The debt is horrendous. Today, the administration sent a letter around and said that the debt of the GSEs totals $2.5 trillion, and they also guarantee in addition $2.4 trillion. That adds up to more money than the Federal Government has borrowed. So it is a tremendous amount of money and credit that is in the system; and people have become frightened about this, including chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan.
government
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 110:3
I see one attempt is to deal with this problem that we face. Another attempt is we are deciding that we need more money directed into the housing industry, and of course your building friends like this, too. And those are Republican allies as well. The builders love this because we will pump more money into the market so they can make more profits. So it is another government housing project. From a market viewpoint, this is not good because we want the money in the market to be allocated purely by the market and not by government direction.
government
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 110:4
It is the government direction first from the inflation, the artificial interest rates, and then from the allocation of funds that cause distortion. That is what we are dealing with here, the distortion that people are literally frightened about because nobody can even measure the amount of derivatives that are involved with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. People are holding their breath for an accident to happen.
government
U.S. Interfering In Middle East
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 113:8
Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.
government
We Have Been Warned
October 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 114:4
Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.
government
Ahmadinejad’s Statement No Excuse To Escalate War Of Words
28 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues here in condemning the statement reportedly made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” I reject this statement and any such statement by any government anywhere because I reject the notion that the use or threat of violence is an appropriate way to solve international disputes.
government
Rosa Parks
2 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1285, a bill naming a federal building in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks and I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mrs. Parks’s courage and high ideals. Rosa Parks’s simple act of refusing to get up from her seat to comply with an unjust law inspired a movement that brought an end to state-mandated racial segregation. Mrs. Parks was inspired to challenge government power by her conviction that laws that treated African-Americans as second- class citizens violated the natural rights all humans receive from their creator — rights which no government can justly infringe.
government
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
government
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
government
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:8
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:1
The privacy issue has been around for a long time. The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans played a big role in our revolt against the King. The 1 st , 4 th , and 5 th amendments represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an overzealous federal government. Today those attempts appear to have failed.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:2
There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether “privacy” is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected. Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal government power to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:3
In recent years—especially since 9-11—Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment on the rights of privacy. Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:4
From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:8
Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of the centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine. By declaring anyone an “enemy combatant”—a totally arbitrary designation by the President— the government can deny an individual his right to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney. Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our policy of torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges seems acceptable to many. Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited detention of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself torture—especially for those who are totally innocent? Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA prisons now known of for 2 years, and we should be asking ourselves what we have become as a people. Recent evidence that we’re using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq does nothing to improve our image.
government
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:10
It’s time we reconsider the real purpose of government in a society that professes to be free—protection of liberty, peaceful commerce, and keeping itself out of our lives, our economy, our pocketbooks, and certainly out of the affairs of foreign nations.
government
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States.
government
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
government
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
government
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the States from out-of-control Federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
government
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 123:2
For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effect on the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. HR 4241 does not even reduce federal expenditures! That’s right--if HR 4241 passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. HR 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend more than it does today. To put HR 4241 in perspective, consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years, while the most recent “emergency” supplemental passed by this Congress appropriated $82 billion dollars to be spent this year.
government
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 123:3
HR 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this bill gets “runaway entitlement spending” under control, HR 4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation--the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which actually will harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an inferior government-run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while HR 4241 will reduce spending by only $5 billion next year. Yet some House members who voted for every expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to their constituents.
government
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 123:8
HR 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of HR 4241, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign governments and corporate interests.
government
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:14
The blame game is a political event, designed to avoid the serious philosophic debate over our foreign policy of interventionism. The mistakes made by both parties in dragging us into an unwise war are obvious, but the effort to blame one group over the other confuses the real issue. Obviously Congress failed to meet its constitutional obligation regarding war. Debate over prewar intelligence elicits charges of errors, lies, and complicity. It is now argued that those who are critical of the outcome in Iraq are just as much at fault, since they too accepted flawed intelligence when deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations-- all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the prewar intelligence. Complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment as a pre-emptive war against a non-existent enemy.
government
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:42
The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.
government
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:43
How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.
government
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:45
This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we need more rather than less interaction with our world neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce, friendship, and exchange of ideas-- this would far surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed force. And this can be achieved without increasing the power of the state or accepting the notion that some world government is needed to enforce the rules of exchange. Governments should just get out of the way and let individuals make their own decisions about how they want to relate to the world.
government
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:46
Defending the country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of government. Our military involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test, and we’re paying the price for it.
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:2
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:6
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:10
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks.
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:11
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government’s control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally funded insurance is avoided.
government
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 125:12
The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.
government
Pension Protection Act
15 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 126:2
However, I oppose this rule, because I do not like the process under which this bill is being brought to the floor. The rule before us today does not allow any member to offer, or vote on, amendments that may improve this bill. In particular, I was hoping to vote on an amendment protecting United Airline retirees from having their pension benefits reduced or terminated even though United expects to make $1 billion in profit within 1 year of being discharged from bankruptcy. The Senate version of the bill does address same problems of the airline industry. However it fails to protect United Airlines retirees. The Federal Government should not facilitate a large companies getting out of its contractual obligations to their retired workers. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to protect the pensions of retired United Airline employees by rejecting this rule and voting for a rule that allows us to consider adding, language helping the United Airline retirees to the bill. If this rule does pass, I urge my colleagues to move the process foreword by voting for the bill and working to add language protecting the United Airline pilots to the bill when it goes to conference with the Senate.
government
Border Protection Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act Of 2005
16 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 127:2
Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve “operational control of the borders”? Shouldn’t the federal government already have “operational control of the borders”?
government
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:16
It is argued that those who are now critical of the outcome are just as much at fault since they too accepted flawed intelligence when in deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations, all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the pre-war intelligence.
government
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:27
The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more. Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years were lost in the flash while oil wells were secured. U.S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged, and the national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our Federal Government borrows more and more money.
government
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:28
How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into a hysterical frenzy to overcome the natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war. War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.
government
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:29
This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we need more rather than less interaction with our world neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce, friendship and exchange of ideas. This would far surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed force. This can be achieved without increasing the power of the state or accepting the notion that some world government is needed to enforce the rules of exchange. Governments should get out of the way and let the individuals make their own decisions about how they want to relate to the world.
government
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:30
Defending our country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of government. Our military involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test, and we are paying the price.
government
Return To Constitutional Government
1 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 1:2
This measure does nothing to address the root cause of the scandals — the ever-growing size and power of the Federal Government. As long the Federal Government continues to regulate, tax, and subsidize the American people, there will be attempts to influence those who write the laws and regulations under which the people must live. Human nature being what it is, there will also be those lobbyists and policymakers who will manipulate the power of the regulatory state to enrich themselves. As I have said before, and I fear I will have plenty of opportunity to say again, the only way to get special interest money and influence out of politics is to get the money and power out of Washington. Instead of passing new regulations and laws regulating the people’s right to petition their government, my colleagues should refuse to vote for any legislation that violates the constitutional limits on Federal power or enriches a special interest at the expense of American taxpayers. Returning to constitutional government is the only way to ensure that our republican institutions will not be corrupted by powerful interests seeking special privileges.
government
Eliminating Foreign Aid That Helps Manipulate Elections
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 2:4
I find it interesting that the same proponents of the United States government exporting democracy overseas are now demanding that something be done when people overseas do not vote the way the U.S. Government thinks they should. It seems that being for democracy means respecting that people overseas may not always vote the way Washington wants them to vote. If our aim is to ensure that only certain parties or individuals are allowed to lead foreign nations, why not just admit that democracy is the last thing we want? That attitude is evident in the fact that the U.S. Government spent more than $2 million trying to manipulate the Palestinian vote in favor of parties supported by Washington. You cannot have it both ways. Although it is always a good idea to eliminate foreign aid, we should be careful about calling the manipulation of elections overseas an exercise in “democracy promotion.”
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:3
Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day. Though money developed naturally in the marketplace as governments grew in power, they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold; but in time, governments learned to outspend their revenues.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:6
This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days, those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:15
The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere appearance that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official government obligation to protect our commercial interest from Europeans.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:42
It is now common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11 or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat-out misrepresentations of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:68
It has been suggested we need to change course and correct the way Congress is run. A good idea, but if we merely tinker with current attitudes about what role the Federal Government ought to play in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:70
Could it be that we are all looking in the wrong places for our solution to a recurring, constant, and pervasive corruption in government? Perhaps some of us in Congress are mistaken about the true problem. Perhaps others deliberately distract us from exposing the truth about how miserably corrupt the budget process in Congress is.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:72
This system of government is coming to an end, a fact that significantly contributes to the growing anxiety of most Americans, especially those who pay the bills and receive little in return from the corrupt system that has evolved over the decades.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:74
The steady erosion of real wealth in this country and the dependency on government generated by welfare-ism and warfare-ism presents itself as the crisis of the ages. Lobbying scandals and the need for new leadership are mere symptoms of a much, much deeper problem.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:76
The Founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property and dollars to force democracy on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to democracy. No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth. Our system of democracy has come to mean worshiping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:79
Dealing with lobbying scandals while ignoring the scandal of unconstitutional runaway government will solve nothing. If people truly believe that reform is the solution through regulating lobbyists and increasing congressional reporting requirements, the real problem will be ignored and never identified. This reform only makes things worse.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:80
Greater regulation of lobbyists is a dangerous and unnecessary proposition. If one expects to solve a problem without correctly identifying its source, the problem persists. The first amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no laws respecting the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” That means no law.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:81
The problem of special interest government that breeds corruption comes from our lack of respect for the Constitution in the first place. So what do we do? We further violate the Constitution, rather than examine it for guidance as to the proper role of the Federal Government.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:83
The theft that the Federal Government commits against its citizens and the power that Congress has assumed illegally are the real crimes that need to be dealt with. In this regard, we truly need a new direction: get rid of the evil tax system, the fraudulent monetary system and the power of the government to run our lives, the economy and the world, and the Abramoff types would be exposed for the mere gnats they are. There would be a lot less of them since the incentive to buy politicians would be removed.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:84
Even under today’s flawed system of democratic government, which is dedicated to redistributing property by force, a lot could be accomplished if government attracted men and women of good will and character. Members could just refuse to yield to the temptations of office and reject the path to a lobbying career.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:85
But it seems once government adopts the rules of immorality, some of the participants in the process yield to the temptation as well, succumbing to the belief that the new moral standards are acceptable.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:88
Comparing the current scandal to the big one, the Abramoff types are petty thieves. The government deals in trillions of dollars, the Abramoffs in mere millions. Take a look at the undeclared war we are bogged down in 6,000 miles from our shore. We have spent $300 billion already, but Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz argues that the war will actually cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion when it is all over. That is trillions, not billions. Even that figure is unpredictable, because we may be in Iraq for another year or 10. Who knows.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:91
The system of special interest government that has evolved over the last several decades has given us a national debt of over $8 trillion, a debt that now expands by over $600 billion every year. Our total obligations are estimated to be between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. Most people realize that the Social Security system, the Medicare system and the new prescription drug program are unfunded. Thousands of private pension funds are now being dumped on the U.S. Government and American taxpayers. We are borrowing over $700 billion each year from foreigners to finance this extravagance, and we now qualify as the greatest international debtor Nation in history.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:92
Excessive consumption using borrowed money is hardly the way to secure a sound economy. Instead of reining in government spending, Congress remains oblivious to the financial dangers and panders to special interests by offering no resistance whatsoever to every request for new spending. Congress spends $2.7 trillion annually in an attempt to satisfy everyone’s demands. The system has generated over $200 trillion in derivatives.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:98
Is it any wonder jobs go overseas? True capital only comes from savings, and Americans save nothing. We only borrow and consume. A counterfeiter has no incentive to take his newly created money and build factories. The incentive for Americans is to buy consumers goods from other countries whose people are willing to save and invest in their factories and jobs. The only way we can continue this charade is to borrow excess dollars back from the foreign governments who sell us goods and perpetuate the pretense of wealth that we enjoy.
government
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.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:105
Now, this is a real scandal worth worrying about. Since it is not yet on Washington’s radar screen, no attempt at addressing the problem is being made. Instead, we will be sure to make those the Constitution terms petitioners to redress their grievances fill out more forms. We will make government officials attend more ethics courses so they can learn how to be more ethical.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:107
Whether government programs are promoted for good causes, helping the poor, or bad causes, permitting a military industrial complex to capitalize on war profits, the principles of the market are undermined. Eventually, nearly everyone becomes dependent on the system of deficits, borrowing, printing press money, and the special interest budget process that distributes the loot by majority vote.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:108
Today, most business interests and the poor are dependent on government handouts. Education and medical care is almost completely controlled and regulated by an overpowering central government. We have come to accept our role as world policeman and nation builder with little question despite the bad results and inability to pay the bills.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:110
The Abramoff-type scandals come and go in Washington, patched over with grandiose schemes and reform that amount to nothing more than government and congressional mischief. But our efforts should be directed toward eliminating the greatest of all frauds, printing press money that creates the political conditions breeding the vultures and leaches who feed off the corrupt system.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:112
The Abramoff scandal can serve a useful purpose if we put it in the context of the entire system that encourages corruption. If it is seen as an isolated case of individual corruption and not an expected consequence of big government run amok, little good will come of it. If we understand how our system of government intervenes in our personal lives, the entire economy and the internal affairs of other nations around the world, we can understand how it generates the conditions where lobbyists thrive.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:113
Only then will some good come of it. Only then will we understand that undermining the first amendment right of people to petition the government is hardly a solution to this much more serious and pervasive problem.
government
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:116
Finally, why not try something novel like having Congress act as an independent and equal branch of government? Restore the principle of the separation of powers so that we can perform our duty to provide checks and balances on an executive branch and an accommodating judiciary that spies on Americans, glorifies the welfare state, fights undeclared wars, and enormously increases the national debt.
government
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows our country is deeply in debt. Most Americans decry the rampant growth in government spending. Essentially, however, no one in Washington is concerned enough to do anything about it.
government
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:3
Debt is like an addiction: the political pain of withdrawal keeps politicians spending, so they do not offend any special interest groups demanding that government benefits continue. As with all addictions, long-term dependency on a dangerous substance can kill the patient. Dependency on bad policy also can destroy the goose that many believe lays the golden egg.
government
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:4
Our ever-increasing government expenditures, which perpetuate a runaway welfare/warfare state, simply are not sustainable. The fallacy comes from the belief that government can provide for our needs and manage a worldwide empire. In truth, government can provide benefits only by first taking resources from productive American citizens or borrowing against the future. Inevitably, government programs exceed the productive capacity of the people or their willingness to finance wasteful spending.
government
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:5
The authority to accumulate deficits provides a tremendous incentive to politicians to increase spending. Total spending is the real culprit. The more government taxes, borrows, or inflates, the less chance the people have to spend their resources wisely. The way government spends money also causes great harm. By their very nature, governments are inefficient and typically operate as we recently witnessed with FEMA in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas over the last 6 months. Governments are bureaucratic, inefficient, and invite fraud. This is just as true in foreign affairs as it is in domestic affairs. Throughout history, foreign military adventurism has been economically harmful for those nations bent on intervening abroad. Our Nation is no different.
government
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:8
But this official debt figure barely touches the subject. Total obligations of the Federal Government, including Social Security and Medicare and prescription drugs, are now over $50 trillion, a sum younger generations will not be able to pay. This means the standard of living of a lot of Americans who are retired will decline sharply in the near future.
government
Introduction Of The Treat Physicians Fairly Act
2 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 7:4
Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the health care market. When I began practicing medicine, it was common for doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However, laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they where acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increasing health care costs associated with the government- facilitated overreliance on third party payments priced more and more people out of the health care market. Thus, the government responded to problems created by its interventions by imposing the EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making health care professionals scapegoats for the harmful consequences of government health care polices.
government
Introduction Of The Treat Physicians Fairly Act
2 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 7:5
EMTALA could actually decrease the care available for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA discourages physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians in my district have told me that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the Federal Government treats medical professionals. The tax credits created in the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of the burden government policies place on physicians.
government
Introduction Of The Sunlight Rule
2 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 8:4
Mr. Speaker, the practice of rushing bills to the floor before individual Members have had a chance to study the bills is one of the major factors contributing to public distrust of Congress. Voting on bills before Members have had time to study them makes a mockery of representative government and cheats the voters who sent us here to make informed decisions on public policy. Adopting the sunlight rule is one of, if not the, most important changes to the House rules this Congress could make to restore public trust in, and help preserve the integrity of, this institution. I hope my colleagues will support this change to the House rules.
government
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, contrary to its proponents’ claims, S. 2271 fails to address the constitutional flaws in the PATRIOT Act or protect innocent Americans against future abuses of their civil liberties. Rather, passing this bill makes the permanent authorization of most of the act inevitable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 2271 in order to force the House and Senate to craft a new legislation giving the government the tools necessary to fight terrorism without sacrificing constitutional liberties.
government
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:4
Among S. 2271’s flaws are provisions restricting recipients of a “gag” order regarding government seizure of private records from seeking judicial review of such orders for a year and requiring that recipients prove government officials acted in “bad faith,” a ridiculously high standard, simply to be able to communicate that the government has ordered them to turn over private records. The bill also requires that recipients of National Security Letters, which can be abused to sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, provide the FBI with the names of any attorneys from whom they have sought legal counsel from. S. 2271 would thus prohibit a National Security Letter recipient from even asking a lawyer for advice on complying with the letter without having to report it to the FBI. In fact, S. 2271 requires National Security Letter recipients to give the FBI the names of anyone they tell about the letter. This provision will likely have a chilling effect on a recipient of a National Security Letters ability to seek legal advice or other assistance in challenging or even complying with the National Security Letter.
government
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, S. 2271 does not address the fundamental constitutional problems with the PATRIOT Act. To the contrary, S. 2271 will make most of the PATRIOT Act’s dramatic expansions of federal power a permanent feature of American life. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to ensure government can effectively fight terrorism without sacrificing the liberty of law-abiding Americans.
government
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:5
Economists and others who are following M3 have become increasingly concerned about inflation because last year the rate of M3 rose almost twice as fast as other monetary aggregates. This suggests that the inflation picture is not as rosy as the Federal Reserve would like Congress and the American people to believe. Discontinuing reporting the monetary aggregate that provides the best evidence that the Federal Reserve Board has not conquered inflation suggests to many people that the government is trying to conceal information about the true state of the economy from the American people. Brad Conrad, a professor of investing who has also worked with IBM, CDC, and Amdahl, spoke for many when he said, “It [the discontinuance of M3] is unsettling. It detracts from the transparency the Fed preaches and adds to the suspicion that the Fed wants to hide anything showing money growth high enough to fuel inflation...” Discontinuing reporting M3 will only save 0.00000699% of the Federal Reserve Board’s yearly budget. This savings hardly seems to justify depriving the American people of an important measurement of money supply, especially since Congress has tasked the Federal Reserve Board with reporting on monetary aggregates.
government
Opposes Supplemental Spending Bill
15 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 15:7
The real emergency is the rate that this government is spending money we do not have on policies that we cannot afford while ignoring what should be our real priorities.
government
Tribute To Harry Browne
15 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 16:3
Harry’s third book, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, reached number one on the New York Times bestseller list. Other popular books by Harry include How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, The Great Libertarian Offer, and Why Government Doesn’t Work. I was pleased to write the foreword for one of Harry’s books, Liberty A–Z: Libertarian Soundbites You Can Use Right Now, a collection of direct, thought-provoking, and often humorous responses to the questions advocates of the freedom philosophy face.
government
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:4
The obvious shortcomings of our regime change and occupation of Afghanistan are now readily apparent. The Taliban was ousted from power, but they have regrouped and threaten the delicate stability that now exists in that country. Opium drug production is once again a major operation with drug lords controlling a huge area of the country outside of Kabul. And now the real nature of the government we created has been revealed in the case of Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who faced a possible death sentence from the Karzai administration for converting to Christianity. Even now that Mr. Rahman is free due to Western pressure his life remains in danger.
government
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:5
Our bombs and guns have not changed the fact that the new puppet Afghan Government still follows Sharia law. The same loyalty to Sharia exists in Iraq where we are trying hard to stabilize things, and all this is done in the name of spreading democracy.
government
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:7
The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk of spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or a party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government.
government
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:3
The Academic Bill of Rights is a response to concerns that federally funded institutions of higher learning are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of “political correctness” on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their “politically correct” views regardless of whether this type of instruction benefits their students — who are, after all, the professors’ customers. Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of “political correctness” to justify more Federal control over college classrooms.
government
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 20:4
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide- ranging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and 70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal “fairness doctrine.”
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:4
Even with the horrible results of the past 3 years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rise and clamor for democratization in Iran, even though their current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:10
Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:24
For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value, yet it seems the propaganda is working since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for U.N. sanctions against her.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:32
Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how Americans citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change. How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders?
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:35
Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again, we are unilaterally declaring a preemptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And do not expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war. For the past 56 years, Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:36
Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward confrontation in Iran’s policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We are 7,000 miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors? We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times invaded any neighboring country. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly and dangerous.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:40
Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq War are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:45
Unfortunately, the legislative branch of our government too often defers to the executive branch and offers little resistance to war plans, even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary, imminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that is about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:53
This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system, wars would be very difficult to finance since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:63
There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policies of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
government
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:65
First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and it is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you are looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance, though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it is a very costly and dangerous policy.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:6
Buying gold and holding it is somewhat analogous to converting one’s saving into $100 bills and hiding them under the mattress, yet not exactly the same. Both gold and dollars are considered money, and holding money does not qualify as an investment. There is a big difference between the two, however, since by holding paper money, one loses purchasing power. The purchasing power of commodity money, that is gold, however, goes up if the government devalues the circulating paper currency.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:7
Holding gold is protection or insurance against government’s proclivity to debase the currency. The purchasing power of gold goes up not because it is a so-called good investment. It goes up in value only because the paper currency goes down in value. In our current situation, that means the dollar.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:12
The belief that money created out of thin air can work economic miracles if only properly managed is pervasive in the District of Columbia. In many ways, we should not be surprised about this trust in such an unsound system. For at least four generations our government- run universities have systematically preached a monetary doctrine justifying the so-called wisdom of paper money over the foolishness of sound money.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:15
This recent deception failed just as it did in the 1960s when our government tried to hold gold artificially low at $35 an ounce. But since they could not truly repeal the economic laws regarding money, just as many central bankers sold, others bought. It is fascinating that the European central banks sold gold while the Asian central banks bought it over the last several years.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:24
Today, no one in Washington believes for a minute that runaway deficits are going to be curtailed. In March alone, the Federal Government created a historic $85 billion deficit. The current supplemental bill going through Congress has grown from $92 billion to over $106 billion, and everyone knows it will not draw President Bush’s first veto.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:27
Because of a lack of interest and poor understanding of monetary policy, Congress has expressed essentially no concern about the significant change in reporting statistics on the money supply. Beginning in March, though planned before Bernanke arrived at the Fed, the central bank discontinued compiling and reporting monetary aggregates known as M3. M3 is the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation. Yet this report is no longer available to us, and Congress makes no demands to receive it.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:28
Though M3 is the most helpful statistic to track Fed activity, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about trends in monetary policy. Total bank credit, still available to us, gives us indirect information reflecting the Fed’s inflationary policies. But ultimately the markets will figure out exactly what the Fed is up to, and then individuals, financial institutions, governments and other central bankers will act accordingly.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:35
Even if it were recognized that a gold standard without monetary inflation would be advantageous, few in Washington would accept the political disadvantages of living with the discipline of gold since it serves as a check on government size and power. This is a sad commentary on the politics of today.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:36
The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn’t quit, he will die, yet he can’t quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:43
Yet even these costs may be preferable to paying for war with huge tax increases. This is because although fiat dollars are theoretically worthless, value is imbued by the trust placed in them by the world’s financial community. Subjective trust in a currency can override objective knowledge about government policies, but only for a limited time.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:47
The Founders were especially adamant about avoiding the chaos, inflation and destruction associated with the continental dollar. That is why the Constitution is clear that only gold and silver should be legal tender in the United States. In 1792, the Coinage Act also authorized the death penalty for any private citizen who counterfeited the currency. Too bad they weren’t explicit that counterfeiting by government officials is just as detrimental to the economy and the value of the dollar.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:50
Historically paper money never has lasted for long periods of time, while gold has survived thousands of years of attacks by political interests and big government. In time the world once again will restore trust in the monetary system by making some currency as good as gold.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:51
Gold or any acceptable market commodity money is required to preserve liberty. Monopoly control by government of a system that creates fiat money out of thin air guarantees the loss of liberty. No matter how well intended our militarism is portrayed or how happily the promises of wonderful programs for the poor are promoted, inflating the money supply to pay these bills makes government bigger.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:54
At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs or foreign rulers provide an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government rather than protect the privacy of citizens.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:55
Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights. Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly, fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:58
Though runaway inflation is injurious to almost everyone, it is more insidious for certain groups. Once inflation is recognized as a tax, it becomes clear that tax is regressive in nature, penalizing the poor and the middle class more than the rich and the politically privileged. Price inflation, a consequence of inflating the money supply by the central bank, hits poor and marginal workers first and foremost. It especially penalizes savers, retirees, those on fixed incomes, and anyone who trusts government promises.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:59
Small businesses and individual enterprises suffer more than the financial elite, who borrow large sums before the money loses value. Those who are on the receiving end of government contracts, especially in the military industrial complex during wartime, receive undeserved benefits.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:60
It is a mistake to blame high gasoline and oil prices on price gouging. If we impose new taxes or fix prices while ignoring monetary inflation, corporate subsidies and excessive regulations, shortages will result. The market is the only way to determine the best price for any commodity. The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed. The real problems arise when government planners give subsidies to energy companies and favor one form of energy over another.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:61
Energy prices are rising for many reasons: inflation, increased demand from China and India, decreased supply resulting from our invasion into Iraq, anticipated disruption of supplies as we push regime change in Iran, regulatory restrictions on gasoline production, government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels, and subsidies to Big Oil, such as free leases and grants for research and development.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:63
When problems arise under conditions that exist today, it is a serious error to blame the little bit of the free market that still functions. Last summer, the market worked efficiently after Katrina. Gasoline hit $3 a gallon, but soon supplies increased, usage went down, and the price returned to $2. In the 1980s, market forces took oil from $40 a barrel down to $10 a barrel, and no one cried for the oil companies that went bankrupt. Today’s increases are for the reasons mentioned above. It is natural for labor to seek its highest wage and businesses to strive for the greatest profits. That is the way the market works. When the free market is allowed to work, it is the consumer who ultimately determines price and quality, with labor and businesses accommodating consumer choices. Once this process is distorted by government, prices rise excessively, labor costs and profits are negatively affected, and problems emerge.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:64
Instead of fixing the problem, politicians and demagogues respond by demanding windfall profits taxes and price controls, while never questioning how previous government interference caused the whole mess in the first place. Never let it be said that high oil prices and profits cause inflation. Inflation of the money supply causes higher prices.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:69
Here are a few particular things that we should remember: if one endorses small government and maximum liberty, one must support commodity money.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:71
Deficit financing by government is severely restricted by sound money.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:75
Interest rate manipulation by central banks helps the rich, the banks, the government, and the politicians.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:86
Today, we face a 60 percent devaluation and counting, yet no one seems to care. It is of greater significance than the three events mentioned above, and yet the one measurement that best reflects the degree of inflation, the Fed and our government denies us. Since March, M3 reporting has been discontinued. For starters, I would like to see Congress demand that this report be resumed. I fully believe the American people and Congress are entitled to this information.
government
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:91
If we care about the financial system, the tax system, and the monumental debt we are accumulating, we must start talking about the benefits and discipline that come only with a commodity standard of money: money the government and central banks absolutely cannot create out of thin air.
government
Plan Colombia
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the following article detailing the complete failure of “Plan Colombia” into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. As the article points out, despite more than 4 billion dollars being sent to Colombia to fight the “war on drugs,” the coca crop grew by 21 percent last year. After six years of massive wealth transfers from U.S. taxpayers to the Colombian government, not only has no progress been made, but in fact things are getting worse. Unfortunately, with the way things are done in Washington, this failure of “Plan Colombia” will likely result in calls for even more money to be tossed in the black hole of the drug war. It would be far better to learn from our mistakes and abandon the failed “Plan Colombia.”
government
Plan Colombia
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 24:4
Washington has provided the Bogota government with more than $4 billion, mostly in anti-drug aid since 2000 for a program known as Plan Colombia — which was supposed to cut coca cultivation by half within six years.
government
Plan Colombia
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 24:17
The centerpiece of the U.S. anti-drug strategy here is a controversial aerial-eradication program in which crop-dusters, escorted by helicopter gunships, bombard coca plants with chemical defoliants. But the program costs about $200 million annually and many critics say the money would be better spent elsewhere. The idea of eradication is to persuade peasant farmers to give up growing coca and to plant legal crops. But funding by the U.S. and Colombian governments for crop-substitution programs pale in comparison to the eradication budget and most efforts to develop alternatives have failed.
government
Plan Colombia
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 24:18
Part of the problem is that coca is often grown in remote jungles and mountains that are controlled by Marxist guerrillas, contain few roads or markets, and have almost no government presence. Thus, even as crop- dusters have killed off record amounts of coca, farmers stay a step ahead of the spray planes by pushing deeper into the wilderness to grow more.
government
Plan Colombia
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 24:19
In 2000, Colombian farmers attempted to grow about 450,000 acres of coca, about one- third of which was wiped out by the spray planes, according to U.S. government figures. Last year, by contrast, they tried to grow a whopping 780,000 acres. “People with no economic alternatives have not been deterred by fumigation,” said Isacson of the Center for International Policy. “Fumigating an area is no substitute for governing it.”
government
Bill Authorizes Use Of Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes strong sanctions as well as funding to dissident groups inside Iraq to overthrow that government. In my interpretation that is the use of force, and I yield 6 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.
government
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:4
Also, this bill has money in it, and it is open-ended, an authorization of appropriation. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. And what is this section talking about? Subsidies and funding of dissident groups to go in there and undermine the Iranian government.
government
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:8
The question is how do we do it? Are we going to do it pussyfooting around? Or are we going to use force and violence? We did, we used bombs for a long time against Iraq. But we had a bill in 1998 that said explicitly we are going to get rid of the Iraqi government, and it took a few years to get the war going.
government
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:12
But attacking and intimidating other nations, the way we go at it now, literally backfires on us. What is it doing to the dissidents, those who would love to overthrow the Islamic radicals in Iran right now? It unifies them. Did we become unified in this country when we were attacked on 9/11? Do you think Republicans and Democrats were divided on 9/11 and 9/12? No, it brings them together. So this policy does exactly the opposite of what you pretend that you want to do, and that is encourage those people who don’t like their government. But by doing it this way, you literally are doing the very opposite.
government
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 32:5
Second, we must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy, in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even by nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stirs up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and creates even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East.
government
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:5
However, I would like to remind my colleagues that, since earmark reform does not reduce the total amount of spending, instead giving more power to the executive branch to allocate federal funds, the problem of members trading their votes in exchange for earmarks will continue. The only difference will be that instead of trading their votes to win favor with Congressional appropriators and House leadership, members will trade their votes to get funding from the Executive branch. Transferring power over allocation of taxpayer dollars from the legislative branch to the executive branch is hardly a victory for republican government. Reducing Congress’s role in allocating of tax dollars, without reducing the Federal budget, also means State and local officials, to say nothing of ordinary citizens, will have less input into how Federal funds are spent.
government
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:6
Earmarks, like most of the problems H.R. 4975 purports to deal with, are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power. When the government has the power to make or break entire industries by changing one regulation or adding or deleting one paragraph in an appropriation bill it is inevitable that people will seek to manipulate that power to their advantage. Human nature being what it is, it is also inevitable that some people seeking government favors will violate basic norms of ethical behavior. Thus, the only way to effectively address corruption is to reduce the size of government and turn money and power back to the people and the several states.
government
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 33:7
The principals in the recent scandals where not deterred by existing laws and congressional ethics rules. Why would a future Jack Abramoff be deterred by H.R. 4975? H.R. 4975 is not just ineffective to the extent that it burdens the ability of average citizens to support and join grassroots organizations to more effectively participate in the policy process, H.R. 4975 violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead work to reduce corruption in Washington by reducing the size and power of the Federal Government.
government
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Calhoun High School (CHS) of Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, TX. On January 6– 7, 2006 the CHS advanced government class, taught by Gennie Westbrook, traveled to Austin to participate in the Texas State final meet for We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. Calhoun High School ranked second of the seven schools participating in the meet, which is the highest rank yet achieved by a CHS class. In 1995, 2002, and 2003, the CHS class placed third. Students participating in the state contest were Holly Batchelder, Matthew Boyett, Ryan Cardona, Kenneth Chang, Karl Chen, Andrew Delgado, Carlos Galindo, Julio Herrera, Paul Jenkins, Brian Kao, Dustin Lambden, Kayla Meyer, Jake Prejean, and Thomas Reagan.
government
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:4
We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is a nationally acclaimed civic education program focusing on the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. In addition to the requirements of the standard government class, students in this program must master a rigorous curriculum in the background and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution. They participate in oral assessment that involves both prepared and extemporaneous responses to challenging questions. In this nationwide competition, students play the role of “experts in the Constitution,” testifying before a mock Congressional hearing. Among other criteria, students are evaluated on their depth of knowledge, ability to apply academic data to current problems, and understanding of landmark Supreme Court cases. Teams of three students each present a four-minute prepared testimony to answer questions they have researched all semester, and then they respond to extemporaneous follow- up questions from the judges for another six minutes. Judges at the state contest include practicing attorneys, university professors, historians, and legislative staff members.
government
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:5
In 2001, the Center for Civic Education conducted a survey of We the People alumnae, focusing on voting and civic participation. Among the former students, 82 percent reported that they voted in the November 2000 election. In addition, 77 percent had voted in previous elections. By contrast, the National Election Studies reported 48 percent turnout in the November 2000 election by other respondents aged 18–30. Research also indicates that participation in We the People programs helps encourage greater interest in politics and public affairs, increased involvement in government decision making at all levels, greater willingness to respect the opinions and rights of others, and better preparation for the privileges and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. More information about the program may be found at the Center for Civic Education website, http://www.civiced.org/ wethepeople.php.
government
Tribute To Calhoun High School
11 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 34:6
We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution is the Advanced U.S. Government class available every fall to Calhoun High School seniors. The first place team from each state traveled to Washington, D.C. for the National Final Competition on April 29–May 1, 2006. McAllen’s Lamar Academy team, taught by LeAnna Morse, won first place this year in Texas, and her class often receives Honorable Mention as one of the top 10 schools at the national final meet.
government
Amending Title 49, United States Code
6 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 changes the rules under which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) negotiates with Federal employees unions, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), to make the FAA abide by the exact same process that other government agencies do when they negotiate with Federal employees unions. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not allow NATCA to indefinitely prolong negotiations. H.R. 5449 allows the FAA to act to end negotiations and bring their case before a Federal mediation board who has power to resolve the dispute. H.R. 5449 would prevent the FAA from unilaterally imposing a contract on the air traffic controllers. In contrast, the current system may provide the FAA with the opportunity to drag out negotiations, so it can ultimately declare an impasse and impose a contract. Thus, the changes made in H.R. 5449 seem reasonable.
government
Amending Title 49, United States Code
6 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 42:3
Some opponents of H.R. 5449 complain that the air traffic controllers are overpaid. However, since the air traffic control system is government controlled and government financed, the wages of air traffic controllers are not set by the market. Instead, these wages are set by political and bureaucratic fiat. Absent a market, it is imposable to say the air traffic controllers’ wages are too high or too low. In fact, given the importance of air traffic control, it is possible that, in a free market, some air traffic controllers may have higher incomes than they do now. One thing I can say for sure is that air traffic controllers would still have their jobs if the Federal government were limited to its constitutional functions since air traffic controllers perform a function that would be necessary in a free market.
government
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.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:2
One of the problems facing America’s domestic steel industry is that it must compete with foreign industries that receive subsidies from their governments. Some of these subsidies are explicitly intended to provide these companies with a non-market advantage over American steel producers. The U.S. Government further compounds the damage caused by these subsidies by forcing the domestic steel producers to support their major competitors through taxpayer-funded programs.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:4
Meanwhile, OPIC has provided almost $6 billion of the taxpayers’ money to leading steel exporters. Thus, the American taxpayer has provided at least $26 billion worth of support to the countries that are the leading competitors of the domestic steel industry. This does not count the funds provided these countries by the IMF. Since money is fungible, the practical effect of providing aid to countries which practice industrial policy is to free up resources these governments can use to further subsidize their steel industries. Thus, taxpayer dollars sent to foreign governments and industries can benefit foreign steel manufacturers even if American taxpayer money is not sent to directly benefit those industries.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:6
Ironically, many of the supporters of these foreign giveaways claim to be promoters of free trade. This claim makes as much sense as a supporter of higher taxes and spending claiming to be a fiscally conservative supporter of limited government. Free trade is the peaceful exchange of goods and services across borders unhampered by government interference. Taxing American workers to support their overseas competitors is not free trade. Instead, it is corporatism designed to benefit certain politically powerful interests at the expense of American entrepreneurs and workers.
government
Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
15 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 44:7
I have no doubt that America’s steel industry can out-compete the steel industry of any country if allowed to compete on a level planning field. Unfortunately, due in part to government policy, today’s playing field is in no way level. Congress must end this economically destructive, immoral, and unconstitutional policy of forcing owners and workers in the domestic steel industry to subsidize their competitors. I therefore call upon my colleagues to cosponsor the Steel Financing Fairness Act.
government
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, is not an effective means of reining in excessive government spending. In fact, H.R. 4890 would most likely increase the size of government because future presidents will use their line item veto powers to pressure members of Congress to vote for presidential priorities in order to avoid having their spending projects “line item” vetoed. In my years in Congress, I cannot recall a single instance where a president lobbied Congress to reduce spending. In fact, in 1996 Vice President Al Gore suggested that President Clinton could use his new line item veto power to force Congress to restore federal spending and programs eliminated in the 1996 welfare reform bill. Giving the president authority to pressure members of Congress to vote for new government programs in exchange for protecting members’ pet spending projects is hardly a victory for fiscal responsibility or limited government.
government
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 47:2
H.R. 4890 supporters claim that this bill does not violate the Constitution. I am skeptical of this claim since giving the president the power to pick and choose which parts of legislation to sign into law transforms the president into a legislator, thus upending the Constitution’s careful balance of powers between the Congress and the president. I doubt the drafters of the Constitution, who rightly saw that giving legislative power to the executive branch would undermine republican government and threaten individual liberty, would support H.R. 4890.
government
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 47:3
Mr. Speaker, it is simply not true that Congress needs to give the president the line item veto power to end excessive spending. Congress can end excessive spending simply by returning to the limitations on government power contained in the United States Constitution. The problem is a lack of will among members of Congress to rein in spending, not a lack of presidential power. Congress’s failure to do its duty and cut spending is no excuse for granting new authority to the executive branch.
government
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 47:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act upsets the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Increasing the power of the executive branch will likely increase the size and power of the federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead simply vote against all unconstitutional spending.
government
Agreeing To Talk To Iran Unconditionally
22 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 48:10
We need to remember that decisionmaking power under Iran’s Government is not entirely concentrated in the President. We are all familiar with the inflammatory rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, but there are others, government bodies in Iran, that are more moderate and eager for dialogue. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in the Middle East. We cannot afford to continue on the path of conflict over dialogue and peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily threatening Iran is not in the interest of the United States and is not in the interest of world peace.
government
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the federal government’s program examine records of international financial transactions collected by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) is worth all the sound and fury that has surrounded the program since its existence was revealed last week. For one thing, this program appears to threaten civil liberties less than the already widely known “Know Your Customer” program or the requirement that American financial institutions file suspicious activity reports whenever a transaction’s value exceeds $10,000. However, the program’s defenders should consider the likelihood that having federal bureaucrats wade through mountains of SWIFT-generated data will prove as ineffective in protecting the American people as other government programs that rely on sifting through mountains of financial data in hopes of identifying “suspicious transactions.”
government
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:2
According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, “[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a ‘suspicious transaction report’ had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that ‘this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.’ ” Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, that giving federal bureaucrats even more data to sift through will make the American people safer.
government
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:3
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America’s enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government’s power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.
government
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:4
Congress should be leery of criticizing media reporting on government activity. Attacking the media for revealing information about government surveillance of American citizens may make reporters reluctant to aggressively pursue stories that may embarrass the government. A reluctance by the media to “embarrass the state” will make it easier for the federal government to get away with violating the people’s rights. Media reports on government surveillance and other security programs can help Congress and the Americans people ensure the government’s actions effectively protect Americans’ security without infringing on basic constitutional liberties. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
government
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
government
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
government
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
government
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:1
I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It’s not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It’s not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions; bread and butter issues. Yet today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure with abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free, and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country. Almost all taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. The lower 50% pay essentially no income taxes, yet general dissatisfaction and anger are commonplace. The old slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” just doesn’t seem to explain things
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:3
People complain about corruption, but what’s new about government corruption? In the 19 th century we had railroad scandals; in the 20 th century we endured the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Koreagate, and many others without too much anger and resentment. Yet today it seems anger is pervasive and worse than we’ve experienced in the past.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:6
Generally speaking, there are two controlling forces that determine the nature of government: the people’s concern for their economic self interests; and the philosophy of those who hold positions of power and influence in any particular government. Under Soviet Communism the workers believed their economic best interests were being served, while a few dedicated theoreticians placed themselves in positions of power. Likewise, the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution were few, but rallied the colonists to risk all to overthrow a tyrannical king.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:7
Since there’s never a perfect understanding between these two forces, the people and the philosophical leaders, and because the motivations of the intellectual leaders vary greatly, any transition from one system of government to another is unpredictable. The communist takeover by Lenin was violent and costly; the demise of communism and the acceptance of a relatively open system in the former Soviet Union occurred in a miraculous manner. Both systems had intellectual underpinnings.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:9
We all know that ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas, even when supported naively by the people, will have bad results. Could it be the people sense, in a profound way, that the policies of recent decades are unworkable — and thus they have instinctively lost confidence in their government leaders? This certainly happened in the final years of the Soviet system. Though not fully understood, this sense of frustration may well be the source of anger we hear expressed on a daily basis by so many.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:10
No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:11
But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do “good.” They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system; make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices; and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and proper for government — always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:12
Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:13
Once we concede government has this “legitimate” function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the “progressive” agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power — and abuse this power — in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:14
Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it’s created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government “solution.” Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem, but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:15
Fear is generated to garner popular support for the proposed government action, even when some liberty has to be sacrificed. This leads to a society that is systemically driven toward fear — fear that gives the monstrous government more and more authority and control over our lives and property.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:19
It is said that without government health care, the poor would not receive treatment. Medical care would be available only to the rich.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:20
Without government insuring pensions, all private pensions would be threatened.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:22
It is argued that without government surveillance of every American, even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:25
In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it’s safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy, or too much privacy, or excessive liberty.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:26
It’s easy to generate fear, fear that too often becomes excessive, unrealistic, and difficult to curb. This is important: It leads to even more demands for government action than the perpetrators of the fear actually anticipated.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:27
Once people look to government to alleviate their fears and make them safe, expectations exceed reality. FEMA originally had a small role, but its current mission is to centrally manage every natural disaster that befalls us. This mission was exposed as a fraud during last year’s hurricanes; incompetence and corruption are now FEMA’s legacy. This generates anger among those who have to pay the bills, and among those who didn’t receive the handouts promised to them quickly enough.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:29
The economic impossibility of this system guarantees that the harder government tries to satisfy the unlimited demands, the worse the problems become. We won’t be able to pay the bills forever, and eventually our ability to borrow and print new money must end. This dependency on government will guarantee anger when the money runs out. Today we’re still able to borrow and inflate, but budgets are getting tighter and people sense serious problems lurking in the future. This fear is legitimate. No easy solution to our fiscal problems is readily apparent, and this ignites anger and apprehension.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:31
It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:41
When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can’t understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:65
The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:66
Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and occupation of a foreign country.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:71
Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people into war, since it serves their selfish interests — and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following WWII.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:76
The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It’s only after years of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing. Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing 2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:79
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
government
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:80
The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions.
government
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:9
H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
government
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 53:10
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.
government
Alternative Pluripotent Stem cell Therapies Enhancement Act
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
government
Alternative Pluripotent Stem cell Therapies Enhancement Act
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 57:2
The main question that should concern Congress today is does the United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing the individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I will vote to uphold President Bush’s expected veto of H.R. 810.
government
Alternative Pluripotent Stem cell Therapies Enhancement Act
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 57:7
Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts.
government
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:2
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.
government
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
government
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:5
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
government
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two- thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
government
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 58:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
government
National Aeronautics And Spaca Administration
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 59:8
I would like now to close with a particular quote that is very pertinent for what we are doing here with this resolution. This comes from a famous author of the last century, who might have been one of the most famous, who wrote a book that many Members of this Congress may well have read. The interesting thing about this quote, it comes from an individual who was not much in favor of big government. As a matter of fact, she was in favor of very, very limited government, and she introduced the ideas of libertarianism to millions of Americans.
government
National Aeronautics And Spaca Administration
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 59:9
But nevertheless, it just happened that NASA was her favorite government agency, and therefore after the Moon landing in 1979 she wrote very favorably about NASA, which in some ways contradicted her philosophy, but it also spoke to the tremendous brilliance and success of the Moon exploration program.
government
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 4
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 65:2
I just want to make a couple of comments before yielding. It has been well advertised about the three prisoners that have been taken, the three Israeli prisoners. Everybody in the country knows about it. What I find a bit interesting is that some people estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese are in prisons and under the authority of the Israeli police and government.
government
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 4
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 65:3
It is also known that one-third of the Cabinet of Palestine have been arrested and held hostage by the Israeli Government, and once again, I think this is a distortion of what is going on. It is hard to get the information out to find out exactly what is happening in this area.
government
Noninterventionist Policy — Part 4
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 65:4
Also, I would like to make one additional point that it is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to everything Hezbollah does because I am a strong opponent to all violence on both sides. So I object, too, but I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel was there for 18 years, and Hezbollah did not get any weaker, and they are stronger than ever. So I think, again, a little bit of balance is worth considering.
government
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:27
And domestic spending is never curtailed. We have been in charge of the Congress and the Presidency for several years now, and the government gets bigger, probably faster than it was getting before.
government
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:36
But don’t think that we can force our values at the point of a gun, and think they are all going to be democratic elected governments that we are going to be pleased with. It is not going to happen.
government
Condemning The Recent Attacks Against The State Of Israel
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 68:9
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.
government
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.
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:7
The moral case against Ex-Im is strengthened when one considers that one of the governments which benefits most from Ex-Im funds is Communist China. In fact, Ex-Im actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese Government. Whatever one’s position is on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this regime.
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:8
Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case. Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer subsidized trade as well, courtesy of the Ex-Im Bank. At a time when the Federal Government is running huge deficits and Congress is once again preparing to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayers’ funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and Communist China?
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:13
Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers. Leaving the resources in the private sector ensures the resources will be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, when the government diverts resources into the public sector via programs such as the Eximbank, their use is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, resulting in a distorted market and a misallocation of resources. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:14
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:15
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.
government
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 69:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.
government
Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006
27 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 72:3
Creating a new federal department to develop a “national strategic plan” for the use of electronic health care records will inevitably lead to the imposition of a “one-size-fits all” standard and will discourage private parties from exploring other more innovative means of storing medical records electronically. By stifling private sector innovation, H.R. 4157 guarantees that the American people will have an inferior health information technology system. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues: when has a government system ever performed as well as a system developed by the private sector? In fact, Mr. Chairman, based on my 40 years of experience, I would say a major reason the health profession lags behind other professions in using information technology is the excessive government intervention in, and control of, America’s health care system!
government
Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006
27 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 72:4
Those who are concerned with the increasing erosion of medical privacy should also oppose H.R. 4157. H.R. 4157 facilitates the invasion of medical privacy by explicitly making electronic medical records subject to the misnamed federal “medical privacy” regulation. Mr. Chairman, many things in Washington are misnamed, however this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual needs.
government
Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006
27 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 72:5
The so-called “medical privacy” regulation not only reduce individuals” ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, but actually threatens medical privacy and constitutionally protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials’ access to a citizen’s private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant.
government
Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006
27 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 72:6
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.
government
Health Information Technology Promotion Act Of 2006
27 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 72:7
By creating a new federal bureaucracy to establish a “national strategic plan” for the adoption of electronic health care records, H.R. 4157 discourages private sector innovation and expands government control of the medical profession. H.R. 4157 also facilities the violation of medical privacy. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
government
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:4
Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus “wedge” between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law- imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the “minimum wage.” This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65 — why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?
government
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:5
Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment opportunities and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!
government
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:7
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of tax cuts included in this bill will compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely affected by Federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America’s, are doomed to fail.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:2
Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters worse.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:3
Not long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is, a majority of American citizens expect the Federal Government to provide for every need without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem-solvers, since nobody asked first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:4
At home, I am frequently asked about my frustration with Congress since so many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, No, I am never frustrated because I have such low expectations. But the American people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions are beyond frustrated with their government.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:5
If solutions to American problems won’t be found in the frequent clamor for more government, it still is up to Congress to explain how our problems developed and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere of liberty, private property, and a free market order.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:6
It is up to us to demand radical change from our failed policy of foreign military interventionism. Robotic responses to cliches of Big Government intervention in our lives are unbecoming to Members who are elected to offer ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo of our economic and political system.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:8
Central economic planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly; it is unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:10
Money and power are important only because the government wields power not granted by the Constitution. A limited constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:14
Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright protections and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as free trade.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:16
The Big Government nanny state is based on the assumption that free markets cannot provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government’s forcible redistribution of wealth.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:17
Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don’t seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:25
In the 1920s and the 1930s, Europe’s financial system collapsed and inflation raged. It was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today, in America the blame is spread out: illegal immigrants, Muslims, big business, whether they got special deals from the government or not, price gouging oil companies, regardless of the circumstances, and labor unions. Ignorance of economics and denial of the political power system that prevails in the District of Columbia makes it possible for Congress to shift the blame.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:28
This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well coordinated by the media, government and military- industrial complex. This collusion is worse than when state-owned media do the same thing.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:29
In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:31
One of the major reasons we have drifted from the Founders’ vision of liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market choices but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend personal liberty but concede the realm of property and economic transaction to government control.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:34
Everyone is aware of the law of unintended consequences. Most Members of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended consequences. Yet few quit voting for government solutions, always hoping there won’t be any particular unintended consequences the next time.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:35
They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the solution that they are currently supporting. Free market economics teaches us that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two new ones are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy meddling. The law of opposites is just a variation of the law of unintended consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal, like, say, make the world safe for democracy, a grandiose scheme of World War I, one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation. The First World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:49
Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense, however, unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel’s desires. We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions and are in the process of threatening her for the third time.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:59
Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the power of Hamas. The U.S. and Israel promptly rejected the results. So much for our support for democratically elected government. Our support for dictatorial Arab leaders remains a thorn in the side of the large Muslim population in the Middle East and one of the main reasons Osama bin Laden declared war against us.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:73
Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it is inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one’s own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism and respect for the rule of law.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:82
Believing one can have perfect knowledge of God’s will and believing government can manage our lives and world affairs have caused a great deal of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are combined, they become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from government and allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one’s religious beliefs. The only solution to controlling political violence is to prohibit the use of force to pursue religious goals and reject government authority to mold the behavior of individuals.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:84
Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and meaningless. The enemy that we are fighting at the expense of our own liberties is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime powers indefinitely. We have been fully warned to expect a long, long war.
government
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:92
A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding of and a greater dedication to free markets and private property rights. It can’t be done without restoring a sound asset- backed currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in the four corners of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.
government
Praising Galveston College’s Strategic Plan
12 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 76:6
In order to better ensure that it is preparing students for good jobs in the Galveston area, Galveston College has assigned an account executive to work with the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, the Galveston Economic Development Partnership, and the Galveston city government to ensure Galveston College’s course offerings match the needs of the community.
government
Opposes 9/11 Resolution
13 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 77:2
Much of the legislation referenced in this legislation is legislation that I supported. For example, I voted in favor of the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and for the SAFE Port Act of 2006. I continue to support measures that help secure our borders and thereby make us less vulnerable to future foreign attack. However, I find it particularly unacceptable to heap praise on the PATRIOT Act, as this bill does. This act expanded the federal government’s power to an unprecedented degree at the expense not of foreign terrorists, but of law-abiding American citizens. It opened average Americans up to wide-ranging government snooping and surveillance in matters completely unrelated to terrorism. For example, the “sneak and peek” provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow law enforcement to enter someone’s home without a warrant, search that property, and never inform that citizen they had been there. Also, libraries and book stores can be forced to provide the government with citizens’ borrowing and purchasing history without showing probable cause. I see no reason to applaud such an un-American piece of legislation.
government
Senior Citizens’ Improved Quality Of Life Act
19 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 79:5
Repealing provisions of Federal law that restrict the ability of senior citizens to form private contracts for health care services. This restriction violates the rights of seniors who may wish to use their own resources to obtain procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainty that come when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered. H.R. 5211 also stops the Social Security Administration from denying Social Security benefits to seniors who refuse to enroll in Medicare Part A. Forcing seniors to enroll in Medicare Part A as a condition for receiving Social Security violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program.
government
Introduction Of taxpayer Protection From Genetic Discrimination Act
20 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayer Protection from Genetic Discrimination Act. This bill ensures that no American taxpayer will be denied health care because of his or her genetic history by any agency of the federal government, a state or local government, or a government contractor. Some people have raised concerns that, while recent advances in genetic testing bring much hope of improved medical treatment, the increased use of genetic tests may also result in many people being denied access to health insurance, or even refused employment, because of their genetic history.
government
Introduction Of taxpayer Protection From Genetic Discrimination Act
20 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 81:2
I recently met with some of my constituents who are concerned that people with polycentric kidney disease, which can be identified with a genetic test, often lose their insurance coverage because their insurance companies companies or employers discover they have polycentric kidney disease. Whatever long- term reforms designed to address this problem one favors, I hope that all my colleagues could agree that Congress should make sure that American citizens are not forced to subsidize government agencies or contractors who deny health insurance based on someone’s genetic profile. I therefore hope all my colleagues support the Taxpayer Protection from Genetic Discrimination Act.
government
Tribute To Lee College
25 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 84:3
Among the technical challenges fadng the consortium was constructing four 150-foot towers, wiring ten buildings, and coordinating with the governmental agencies involved. Once those challenges where resolved, the consortium faced the challenge of finding a company to maintain the system. Fortunately, the consortium was able to contract with TeleShare Communications Services.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:3
Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read” It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads” It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
government
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, S. 403.
government
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recently become a cosponsor of H.R. 6042, offered by my colleague Mrs. Emerson. This bill prohibits the federal government from implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It also provides some privacy protections for framers and ranchers who choose to participate in a voluntary identification system. I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this bill.
government
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 87:3
Small, family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars, as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations, to implement and operate NAIS. These farmers and ranchers will be paying for a massive assault on their property and privacy rights as NAIS forces farmers and ranchers to provide detailed information about their private property to the government. In addition, the NAIS system empowers the Federal government to enter and seize property from farmers and ranchers without a warrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures.
government
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 87:6
Dairy Farmer and Rancher Bob Parker best stated the case against NAIS: “We currently have the systems in place to track animals, as has just happened with the recent ‘mad cow’ in Alabama. Sacrificing our freedoms for security is not a good trade off, in my opinion. Our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of Government becoming too big. This plan is too intrusive, to costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.” I urge my colleagues to listen to Mr. Parker and protect America’s small farmers and ranchers from being burdened with a costly, intrusive and unnecessary NAIS program by cosponsoring H.R. 6042.
government
President Would Define Enemy Combatants
27 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this ill-conceived legislation. Once again, the House of Representatives is abrogating its Constitutional obligations and relinquishing its authority to the executive branch of government.
government
President Would Define Enemy Combatants
27 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 88:3
Additionally, the bill gives the President the exclusive authority to interpret parts of the Geneva Convention relating to treatment of detainees, to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of that Convention. The President’s decision on this matter would not be reviewable by either the legislative or judicial branch of government. This provision has implications not only for the current administration, but especially for any administration, Republican or Democrat, that may come to power in the future.
government
President Would Define Enemy Combatants
27 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 88:6
Mr. Speaker, this bill will leave the men and women of our military and intelligence services much more vulnerable overseas, which is one reason many career military and intelligence personnel oppose it. We have agreed to recognize the Geneva Convention because it is a very good guarantee that our enemy will do likewise when U.S. soldiers are captured. It is in our own interest to adhere to these provisions. Unilaterally changing the terms of how we treat those captured in battle will signal to our enemies that they may do the same. Additionally, scores of Americans working overseas as aid workers or missionaries who may provide humanitarian assistance may well be vulnerable to being named “unlawful combatants” by foreign governments should those countries adopt the criteria we are adopting here. Should aid workers assist groups out of favor or struggling against repressive regimes overseas, those regimes could well deem our own citizens “unlawful combatants.” It is a dangerous precedent we are setting.
government
Iran Freedom Support Act
28 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 89:2
In the introduction to the bill, it says that its purpose is to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition of its government; and I would just ask one question: Could it be possible that others around the world and those in Iran see us as participating in “threatening behavior?” We should make an attempt to see things from other people’s view as well.
government
Iran Freedom Support Act
28 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 89:5
The second reason that I will give you for opposing this is that this is clearly seeking regime change in Iran. We are taking it upon ourselves that we do not like the current regime. I don’t like Almadinyad, but do we have the responsibility and the authority to orchestrate regime change? We approach this by doing two things: Sanctions to penalize, at the same time giving aid to those groups that we expect to undermine the government. Do you know if somebody came into this country and paid groups to undermine our government, that is illegal? Yet here we are casually paying money, millions of dollars, unlimited sums of money to undermine that government. This is illegal.
government
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again rushing to abandon its constitutional duty to protect the constitution balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government by expanding the executive’s authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps without approval from either a regular federal court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Congress’s refusal to provide any effective checks on the warrantless wiretapping program is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and is not necessary to protect the safety of the American people. In fact, this broad grant of power to conduct unchecked surveillance may undermine the government’s ability to identify threats to American security.
government
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:3
According to former Congressman Bob Barr, thanks to Congress’ failure to establish clear standards for wiretapping, under H.R. 5825 “. . .simply making an international call or sending an e-mail to another country, even to a relative (or a constituent) who is an American citizen, will be fair game for the government to listen in on or read. Moreover, this legislation allows the government to conduct secret, warrantless searches of American citizens’ homes in a broad range of circumstances that are essentially undefined in the legislation.”
government
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:4
Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that there may be certain circumstances justifying warrantless wiretapping. However, my colleagues should consider that current law allows for warrantless wiretapping in emergency situations as long as a “retroactive” warrant is sought within 72 hours of commencing the surveillance or the warrantless surveillance commences within 15 days after Congress declares war. If there are legitimate reasons why the current authorization for warrantless wiretapping is inadequate, then perhaps Congress should extend the time allowed to wiretap before applying to the FISA court for a “retroactive” warrant. This step could enhance security without posing the dangers to liberty and republican government contained in H.R. 5825.
government
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:6
Warrantless wiretapping may hinder the ability to identify true threats to safety. This is because experience has shown that, when Congress makes it easier for the federal government to monitor the activities of Americans, there is a tendency to collect so much information that it becomes impossible to weed out the true threats. My colleagues should consider how the over-filing of “suspicious transaction reports” regarding financial transactions hampers effective anti-terrorism efforts. According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, “[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a ‘suspicious transaction report’ had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that ‘this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.’ ” Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, regarding the assertion that allowing federal bureaucrats to accumulate even more data without having to demonstrate a link between the data sought and national security will make the American people safer.
government
SAFE Ports Act
29 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 94:2
I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from internet gambling!
government
Introduction Of Legislation Repealing Two Unconstitutional And Paternalistic Federal Financials Regulations
29 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing 2 unconstitutional and paternalistic federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month’s time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the Federal Government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication.
government
Statement On Helen Chenoweth-Hage
13 November 2006 2006 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, with the passing last month of Helen Chenoweth-Hage, America has lost one of its true champions of liberty and constitutional government, and I have lost a valued friend and colleague. When Helen served in the House of Representatives, she gained a national following for her principled and uncompromising defense of private property, the Second Amendment, American sovereignty, and limited federal government.
government
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:2
Milton Friedman’s most notable contributions to economic theory where in the area of monetary policy. His 1963 work A Monetary History of the United States 1857–1960, coauthored with Anna Schwartz, was among the first works to emphasize the role Federal Reserve policy played in causing the Great Depression. As Friedman said, “The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.”
government
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:5
Unlike many free market economists who downplay their opposition to government of encroachments on personal liberty in order to appear “respectable,” Friedman never hesitated to take controversial stands in favor of liberty. Thus Friedman was one of the most outspoken critics of the federal war on drugs and an early critic of government licensing of professionals. Friedman also never allowed fear of losing access to power stop him from criticizing politicians who betrayed economic liberty. For example, his status as an advisor to President Richard Nixon did not stop him from criticizing Nixon’s imposition of wage and price controls.
government
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:8
On a personal note, I was honored to receive Milton Friedman’s endorsement of my congressional campaign in 1996. One particular quote from his endorsement exemplifies how Milton Friedman’s commitment to the free market was rooted in a recognition that a society that respects the dignity and worth of every individual is impossible without limited government, private property, and sound money: “We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general . . .”
government
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:26
“We, the undersigned, oppose moves toward the reimposition of the draft. The draft would be a more costly way of maintaining the military than an all-volunteer force. Those who claim that a draft costs less than a volunteer military cite as a savings the lower wages that the government can get away with paying draftees. But they leave out the burden imposed on the draftees themselves. Since a draft would force many young people to delay or forego entirely other activities valuable to them and to the rest of society, the real cost of military manpower would be substantially more than the wages draftees would be paid. Saying that a draft would reduce the cost of the military is like saying that the pyramids were cheap because they were built with slave labor.”
government
Various Foreign Policy Suspension Bills At the End Of The 109th Congress
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 101:2
The suspension calendar is being used to pass the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which funnels millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign governments. For example, through the Export-Import Bank, Americans are forced to subsidize China’s economic growth with some $4 billion dollars per year. Is this not controversial?
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 1:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows Members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 1:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. This is why I am also introducing the Social Security Preservation Act, which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 1:4
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
Introduction Of The Senior’s Health Care Freedom Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 2:3
Seniors’ right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration’s refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program!
government
Introduction Of The Senior’s Health Care Freedom Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 2:5
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act.
government
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year’s an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!
government
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 3:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen!
government
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 3:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. The administration’s totalization proposal, a version of which passed the other body in the 109th Congress, actually allows thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. Adding insult to injury, the federal government may even give Social Security benefits to non-citizens who worked here for as little as 18 months.
government
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 3:4
That’s right: the federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked for less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
government
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 3:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
government
Introduction Of The Social Security Preservation Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 4:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
government
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists.
government
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. In 2005, this body established a de facto national ID card with provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers” licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:9
Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a groundswell of opposition to this mandate. There is even a movement in several State legislatures to refuse to comply with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act not only repeals those sections of the Federal law creating a national UD, it forbids the Federal Government from using Federal funds to blackmail States into adopting uniform Federal identifiers. Passing the Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this Congress to show renewed commitment to federalism and opposition to imposing unfunded mandates on the States.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:10
This legislation not only repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:11
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:12
Some members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:13
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:15
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:16
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:17
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy’ ” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:18
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:20
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
government
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
government
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
government
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
government
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 10:2
Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus “wedge” between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law- imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the “minimum wage.” This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65 — why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour?
government
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 10:3
Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment opportunities and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy.
government
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 10:5
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact an ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. However, Mr. Speaker, opponents of H.R. 2 should not fool themselves into believing that adding a package of tax cuts to the bill will compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. Saying that an increase in the minimum wage is acceptable if combined with tax cuts assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely affected by Federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America’s, are doomed to fail.
government
Governmental Funding Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
government
Governmental Funding Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 11:2
The main question that should concern Congress today is does the United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing the individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research.
government
Governmental Funding Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 11:6
Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts.
government
Escalation Is Hardly The Answer
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 12:6
It is interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves: they have not done enough, we are told, and are difficult to train. Yet no one complains that the Mahdi or the Kurdish militias, the Badr Brigade, the real Iraqi Government, not our appointed government, are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations.
government
Reform Medicare To Give Seniors More Choice
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to engage in direct negotiations with pharmaceutical companies regarding the prices the companies will charge Medicare when the companies provide drugs through the Part D program. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, this bill does not interfere with a free market by giving the government new power to impose price controls. Before condemning this bill for creating “price controls” or moving toward “socialized medicine,” my colleagues should keep in mind that there is not, and cannot be, a free market price for a government-subsidized good.
government
Introducing The Sunlight Rule
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 15:5
Madam Speaker, the practice of rushing bills to the floor before individual members have had a chance to study the bills is one of the major factors contributing to public distrust of Congress. Voting on bills before members have had time to study them makes a mockery of representative government and cheats the voters who sent us here to make informed decisions on public policy. Adopting the sunlight rule is one of, if not the, most important changes to the House rules this Congress could make to restore public trust in, and help preserve the integrity of, this institution. I hope my colleagues will support this change to the House rules.
government
Introduction Of The Cures Can be Found Act
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 16:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
government
College Student Relief Act Of 2007
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, anyone who knows a recent college graduate is well aware of the way many young people struggle to pay their student loans. By slightly reducing the interest rate on student loans, H.R. 5, while far from perfect, will help ease this burden. A commendable feature of this bill is that, instead of placing new burdens on taxpayers, it pays for the reduction in interest rates by reducing subsidies to financial institutions. Thus, the bill does not increase the deficit, taxes, or the size or scope of government.
government
College Student Relief Act Of 2007
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 19:2
All-too-often, government programs, which the taxpaying public believes help lower-income Americans, actually provide government subsidies for politically powerful business interests. For example, in the student loan program under discussion today, taxpayer dollars are provided to financial institutions in return for those institutions agreeing to provide student loans under terms set by the government. By reducing subsidies for financial institutions in order to benefit recent graduates, H.R. 5 takes a step toward ensuring the student loan program actually focuses on helping students and recent graduates, instead of using taxpayer dollars for a disguised form of corporate welfare.
government
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:8
That Iraqi officials, from the government we installed, have held conciliatory talks with Iranian officials, something we refuse to do?
government
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:11
The neoconservative propagandists promote the idea that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks for the Iranian people and her government, even though he lacks real power, in order to stir up hatred and generate popular support for an attack on Iran?
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
government
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 24:6
Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
government
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal Government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.
government
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 25:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our Nation’s history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.
government
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 25:7
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
government
Statement On The Iraq War Resolution
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 26:10
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquests have driven most wars throughout all of history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own Revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military-industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
government
Introduction Of The Hope Plus Scholarship Act
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 28:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction.
government
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007 2007 Ron Paul 29:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an evergreater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.
government
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007 2007 Ron Paul 29:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
government
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:5
Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas. This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency.
government
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:6
Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition-- is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.
government
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:11
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.
government
The Scandal At Walter Reed
7 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 34:7
We close bases here at home — some want to close Walter Reed — while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us.
government
The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation
20 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 36:15
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We are dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy, an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs to destroy us.
government
The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation
20 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 36:16
As we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed Hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it is supposed to protect, for which it has claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
government
The Real Reason To Oppose The Supplemental Appropriation
20 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 36:17
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a Nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people.
government
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program.
government
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the FY 2008 budget is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the Nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
government
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:2
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the Federal Government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in 30 years, and tripled just since 1990.
government
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:4
The most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown. The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the Federal Government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the Federal Government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly 50 trillion dollars — a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this 50 trillion amounts to about $175,000.
government
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:7
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25 percent? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a Federal Government as large as it was in 1990.
government
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:10
We should not let the debate over numbers distract us from the fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the budget process.
government
We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)
17 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 40:3
Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the President, and the President did not hesitate to use it.
government
Introducing The Child Health Care Affordability Act
17 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 42:7
Madam Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that loncome parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
government
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:8
It is ironic to me that Congress would concern itself with high salaries in the private sector when, according to data collected by the CATO Institute, Federal employees on average make twice as much as their private sector counterparts. One of the examples of excessive compensation cited by the supporters of the bill is the multi-million dollar package paid to the former CEO of Freddie Mac. As a government- sponsored enterprise that, along with its counterpart Fannie Mae, received almost $20 billion worth of indirect Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone, Freddie Mac is hardly a poster child for the free market.
government
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:10
Past government actions have made it more difficult for shareholders to hold CEOs and boards of directors accountable for disregarding shareholder interests by, among other things, wasting corporate resources on compensation packages and golden parachutes unrelated to performance. During the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as “junk” bonds that made corporate takeovers easier.
government
Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act
25 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual’s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a “unique medical health identifier.” I also support repealing the phony “medical privacy” regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.
government
Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act
25 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 44:2
Because of the Federal Government’s poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee’s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.
government
Introduction Of The Freedom To Bank Act
1 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing two unconstitutional and paternalistic Federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a Federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month’s time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the Federal Government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication.
government
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four Federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
government
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the Federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
government
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:8
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
government
Introducting The Parental Consent Act
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 51:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1427 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1427 increases the economic damage that will occur from the bursting of the housing bubble. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone, while Wayne Passmore of the Federal Reserve estimates the value of the GSE’s Federal subsides to be between $122 and $182 billion dollars.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:2
One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over 2 billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:3
This implicit promise by the Government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the Government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:4
The connection between the GSEs and the Government helps isolate the GSEs’ managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:5
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs makes investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although he has endorsed many of the regulatory “solutions” being considered here today, Chairman Greenspan has implicitly admitted the subsidies are the true source of the problems with Fannie and Freddie.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:7
However, one of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that the market is superior at discovering and punishing fraud and other misbehavior than are government regulators. After all, the market discovered, and began to punish, the accounting irregularities of Enron before the government regulators did.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:10
Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an “independent regulator.” The Founders provided for three branches of government — an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:11
Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders’ opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1427 the regulator’s budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the Sunshine Act.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:12
Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through Government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a “world- class” regulator is ensuring the GSEs’ soundness, the Government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:13
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the Government’s interference in the housing market, the Government’s policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged overinvestment in housing.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:14
H.R. 1427 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent Government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program.
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:16
Instead of addressing Government polices encouraging the misallocation of resources to the housing market, H.R. 1427 further introduces distortion into the housing market by expanding the authority of Federal regulators to approve the introduction of new products by the GSEs. Such regulation inevitability delays the introduction of new innovations to the market, or even prevents some potentially valuable products from making it to the market. Of course, these new regulations are justified in part by the GSEs’ government subsidies. We once again see how one bad intervention in the market (the GSEs’ government subsides) leads to another (the new regulations).
government
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:17
In conclusion, H.R. 1427 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increase the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting of the housing bubble. This is because this bill creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces further distortions into the housing market via increased regulatory power. H.R. 1427 also violates the Constitution by creating yet another unaccountable regulator with quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers. Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bailout investors who were misled by foolish Government interference in the market.
government
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government polices that artificially inflate the price of gas. As I need not remind my colleagues, the American people are being hard hit by skyrocketing gas prices. In some parts of the country, gas prices have risen to as much as $4 per gallon.
government
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:3
Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies.
government
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:4
Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal federal laws and polices that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly though regulations that. discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries.
government
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:5
Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline’s cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3.00 per gallon. During the suspension, the federal government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses.
government
The Affordable Gas Price Act
21 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 54:8
In conclusion Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government polices that increase the cost of gasoline.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:5
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self- interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:6
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:7
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:8
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:11
Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:12
Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:14
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:16
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:19
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:23
The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:24
We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:26
We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:31
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:37
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:39
The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak- and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
government
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:43
A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
government
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.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 56:4
Western governments tax their citizens to fund the World Bank, lend this money to corrupt Third World dictators who abscond with the funds, and then demand repayment which is extracted through taxation from poor Third World citizens, rather than from the government officials responsible for the embezzlement. It is in essence a global transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Taxpayers around the world are forced to subsidize the lavish lifestyles of Third World dictators and highly-paid World Bank bureaucrats who don't even pay income tax.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services World Bank Hearing
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 56:5
The World Bank has outlived its intended purpose. Capital markets are flush with money and well-developed enough to lend money not just to national governments but to local and regional development projects, at competitive market rates. In the aftermath of Mr. Wolfowitz's departure, much will be made of the question of his successor, when the questioning instead should be directed towards the phasing out of the organization.
government
Unanticipated Good Results (When We Leave)
7 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 59:11
Inflation, though denied by our government as being a serious problem, would be greatly reduced. We shouldn’t forget, the big inflation of prices from our spendthrift ways for this war is yet to come.
government
Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)
7 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 60:3
It should be obvious to both supporters and critics of our military action in Iraq that our military has achieved both legal objectives. Our military quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. And a government has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq that has met with U.S. approval, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
government
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:3
H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and other private records of every American.
government
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 1
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 61:4
H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one right, in this case, the right to bear arms, inevitably leads to expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640 pressures States and mandates Federal agencies to dump massive amounts of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central Federal Government database.
government
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act — Part 2
13 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in addition the NICS Improvement Amendments Act illustrates how laws creating new infringements on liberty often also impose large financial burdens on taxpayers. In just its first three years of operation, the bill authorizes new yearly spending of $375 million plus additional spending “as may be necessary.” This new spending is not offset by any decrease in other government spending.
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the market will determine what is money. Historically, when individuals have been free to choose their money they have selected items that are portable, widely accepted, and have a stable value. Having the market, rather than the government, define money is integral to the functioning of a free economy. As Edwin Vieira, perhaps the Nation’s top expert on constitutional monetary policy says, “. . . a free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.”
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:3
While fiat money produced by the State is portable and, thanks to legal tender laws, widely accepted, it is certainly not of stable value. In fact, our entire monetary policy is predicated on the government’s ability to manipulate the value of the currency. Thus, absent legal tender laws, many citizens would refuse to accept government money for their transactions.
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:5
It may seem surprising that the Mr. Byington’s well-phrased attack on legal tender laws appeared in the publication of the American Federation of Labor. However, enlightened union leaders of that time recognized that ways in which workers where harmed by the erosion of the value of money which inevitably follows when governments pass legal tender laws.
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:6
Legal tender laws may disadvantage average citizens but they do help power-hungry politicians use inflationary monetary policy to expand the government beyond its proper limits. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are the special interests who are granted the privilege of producing and controlling the paper money forced on the public via legal tender laws. Legal tender laws thus represent the primary means of reverse redistribution where the wealth of the working class is given, via laws forcing people to use debased money, to well-heeled, politically powerful bankers.
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:7
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people’s liberty and prosperity. This is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender powers to the federal government. Instead, Congress was given powers to establish standards regarding the value of money. In other words, in monetary matters the Congress was to follow the lead of the market. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the coinage act of 1792, he simply adopted the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the value of the Spanish milled silver coin.
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:10
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only justice to dissent in every one of the legal tender cases to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to the constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized and consolidated government.”
government
Introduction Of The Honest Money Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 64:11
Considering the growth of government since the Supreme Court joined Congress in disregarding the constitutional barriers to legal tender laws, can anyone doubt the accuracy of Justice Field’s words? Repeal of legal tender laws would restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to use a currency chosen by the market because it serves the needs of the people, instead of having to use a currency chosen by the State because it serves the needs of power hungry politicians and special interests. Therefore, I urge my colleges to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.
government
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:4
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.
government
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:5
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
government
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:7
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
government
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:5
Economists and others who are following M3 have become increasingly concerned about inflation because in 2005 the rate of M3 rose almost twice as fast as other monetary aggregates. This suggests that the inflation picture is not as rosy as the Federal Reserve would like Congress and the American people to believe. Discontinuing reporting the monetary aggregate that provides the best evidence that the Federal Reserve Board has not conquered inflation suggested to many people that the government was trying to conceal information about the true state of the economy from the American people. Brad Conrad, a professor of investing who has also worked with IBM, CDC, and Amdahl, spoke for many when he said, “It [the discontinuance of M3] is unsettling. It detracts from the transparency the Fed preaches and adds to the suspicion that the Fed wants to hide anything showing money growth high enough to fuel inflation . . .”
government
A Man Of Principle
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 67:6
I met Congressman Jones in his office in the Rayburn Office Building some eight months ago. I was impressed then with his grasp of the situation in Iraq and his unqualified love of country and support for our military. Indeed, for the last five years, he is one of only several congressional Republicans who have embraced their constitutional responsibilities to overwatch and hold accountable our executive branch of government. He asks the tough questions and never backs down. The vast majority of our party has long since abrogated this incredibly important aspect of their duty. He well represents his constituents and the best interests of both our country and our military. As President Gerald Ford once said, “Truth is the glue that holds our government together.” Since our first meeting eight months ago, my respect of Walter Jones has multiplied tenfold.
government
Opening Statement – Committee on Financial Services – Subcommittee: Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology – Remittance Hearing
17 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 68:3
Heavy-handed government intrusion into the operation and regulation of money services businesses would also have the effect of raising the costs of doing business. Money service businesses have done a good job of identifying and serving their customers' needs. Healthy competition has led to a reduction in fees over the years so that money services businesses are accessible to more and more consumers. As some of our witnesses will attest, even the threat of regulation can have a chilling effect on the operation of money services businesses. The money services market has done an admirable job of self-regulation so far. The worst thing Congress could do is intervene in an overly forceful manner and undo all the good things that have been done so far.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services Paulson Hearing
20 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 71:1
A strong case can be made that our economy is not nearly as robust as our government statistics claim.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services Paulson Hearing
20 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 71:14
Congress, and especially the Financial Services Committee, must insist on total transparency and accuracy of all government financial statistics. Any market interference by government agencies must be done in full public view.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services Paulson Hearing
20 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 71:15
All meetings and decision and actions by the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets must be fully open to public scrutiny. If our government is artificially propping up the dollar by directly manipulating gold prices, or colluding with other central banks, it is information that belongs in the public domain. The same is true about any interference in the stock, bond, or commodity markets.
government
Opening Statement Committee on Financial Services Paulson Hearing
20 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 71:16
A free market economy requires that government keeps its hands off and allows the consumers to exert their rightful control over the economy.
government
University And College Union Of The United Kingdom Boycott Against Israeli Academia
11 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 74:2
My concerns are about this particular piece of legislation, however. I simply do not understand why it is the business of the United States Congress — particularly considering the many problems we have at home and with U.S. policy abroad — to bring the weight of the U.S. government down on an academic disagreement half a world away. Do we really believe that the U.S. Government should be sticking its nose into a dispute between British and Israeli academics? Is there no dispute in no remote corner of the globe in which we don’t feel the need to become involved?
government
Statement before the Financial Services Committee – Humphrey Hawkins Prequel Hearing
17 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 76:4
Price stability attempts to disadvantage consumers by keeping prices stable, rather than allowing them to take their natural course of decline. This policy comes from two misguided notions: that lower prices lead to lower profits, and that lower prices lead to deflation. In its effort to ensure price stability, the Federal Reserve resorts to inflation targeting, using the federal funds rate and open market operations to increase the money supply at an ostensible low rate, introducing a subtle but pernicious inflation into the monetary system. Inflation benefits the government and the well-off, the first users of the new money, but harms those who receive the new money last, those who are predominantly poor and middle class.
government
Statement before the Financial Services Committee – Humphrey Hawkins Prequel Hearing
17 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 76:5
But prices do not just apply to goods, they also apply to the price of labor, or wages. Wage raises are often indexed to government CPI figures, which are notoriously prone to manipulation. While official government figures show a CPI under 3%, according to the methods used when CPI was first calculated the current rate of inflation is over 10%. What this means is that while wages will remain stable in real terms, the price of goods and services will increase at a faster rate, leading to a decrease in the real standard of living. The Fed's loose money policy then leads to the lure of easy credit, which will hook more and more families, who will find themselves falling deeper and deeper into debt to finance their lifestyles.
government
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.
government
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 77:2
No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.
government
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 77:3
H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?
government
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 77:4
This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.
government
Opposing Further Sanctions On Iran
30 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 78:2
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders or change their policies by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So sanctions mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
1 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
1 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 80:2
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.
government
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
1 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 80:5
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our Federal Government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via Federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
government
Introduction Of The Congressional Responsibility And Accountability Act
2007 Ron Paul 82:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy. Law-making by executive agencies also violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
government
Statement on HR 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to provide some Congressional oversight over the deployment and maintenance of our troops stationed overseas. As the Constitution states in Article I Section 8., Congress has the power “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,” and therefore Congress has an obligation to speak on such matters. I have been and remain extremely concerned about the deployment extensions and stop-loss programs that have kept our troops deployed and engaged for increasingly extended periods of time. My constituents who are affected by this policy have contacted me with their concerns as well.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patients and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
government
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 84:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
government
Introduction Of The Treat Physicians Fairly Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 85:4
Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the health care market. When I began practicing medicine, it was common for doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However, laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they were acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increasing health care costs associated with the government- facilitated overreliance on third party payments priced more and more people out of the health care market. Thus, the government responded to problems created by its interventions by imposing the EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making health care professionals scapegoats for the harmful consequences of government health care policies.
government
Introduction Of The Treat Physicians Fairly Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 85:5
EMTALA could actually decrease the care available for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA discourages physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians in my district have told me that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the Federal Government treats medical professionals. The tax credits created in the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of the burden government policies place on physicians.
government
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 86:3
Furthermore, the predominance of third- party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
government
Introduction Of The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
2 August 2007 2007 Ron Paul 87:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the States. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
government
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 552, “Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to remove barriers to United States financial services firms doing business in China.”
government
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:2
Attempting to force the hand of the Chinese government by requiring them to open their markets to United States financial services firms is akin to playing with fire. Politicians today fail to realize just how deeply our profligate fiscal and monetary policies of the past three decades have left us in debt to China. The Chinese government holds over one trillion dollars in reserves, leaving the future of the dollar highly vulnerable to the continued Chinese demand.
government
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:3
While I am in favor of unencumbered free trade, free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy.
government
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:4
H. Res. 552 is a blatant encroachment on the sovereignty of the Chinese government. Were the Chinese government to pressure us into allowing greater access to the United States market for Chinese financial services firms, or to pressure us into allowing the sale of firms in strategic sectors of the market, we would justifiably resist this pressure.
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:2
“The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ‘temporary’ government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this ‘temporary’ insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be ‘temporary.’ ”
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:6
Mr. Chairman, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:10
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks!
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:11
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government’s control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally funded insurance is avoided.
government
Terrorism Insurance
19 september 2007 2007 Ron Paul 89:12
The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.
government
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
government
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over- regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
government
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:6
The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals Federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain “digital technology.” In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006, that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to economist Stephen Moore, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufacturers and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government-mandated price increase.
government
Introducing The Television Consumer Freedom Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 91:7
Madam Speaker, the Federal Government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.
government
Statement On Introduction Of The Cost Of Government Awareness Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cost of Government Awareness Act, which repeals one of the most deceptive practices of the federal government — income tax withholding. Withholding keeps many Americans ignorant about the true size of the federal tax burden. Withholding is also the reason millions of Americans overpay their income taxes, granting the United States Government interest-free loans. Many of these taxpayers are further misled into thinking the U.S. Government is acting benevolently when they receive “refunds” of money improperly taken from them through withholding!
government
Statement On Introduction Of The Cost Of Government Awareness Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 92:3
When the United States Government implemented withholding in 1943, it promised the American people that this would be a “temporary” measure. I am sure my colleagues agree that 64 years is a sufficient lifespan for any “temporary” measure. It is time to end the deceptive practice of withholding and empower taxpayers to reflect upon their tax bill each month and ask, “What are they getting for their money.” An honest answer to that question may lead to a groundswell for true tax reform.
government
Statement On Introduction Of The Cost Of Government Awareness Act
19 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 92:4
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to let the American people know their tax burden by cosponsoring the Cost of Government Awareness Act.
government
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:3
One of the primary means the Federal Reserve uses to stimulate the economy is manipulation of the federal funds rate and the discount rates, which are used as benchmark rates throughout the economy. The interest rate is the price of time, as the value of a dollar today and the value of a dollar one year from now are not the same. Just like any price in the market, interest rates have an important informational signaling purpose. Government price fixing of the interest rate has the same deleterious effects as price controls in other areas.
government
Opposing Legislation To Provoke Iran
25 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 94:4
This legislation authorizes millions more dollars to identify and support young Iranians to come to the United States. Does anyone believe that we are assisting political opposition to the current Iranian regime by singling Iranians out for U.S. support? How would Americans react if the Chinese government were funding U.S. students to come to China to learn how to overthrow the U.S. government? This move is a counterproductive waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
government
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
27 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to two amendments to H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, that will help those Americans, including many in my congressional district, at risk of increased flood insurance premiums because of actions of the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). FEMA is demanding that many towns and communities spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to certify levies and other mitigation devices. If the levies are not certified to FEMA’s satisfaction, the residents of those communities will face higher flood insurance premiums. Many local governments are struggling to raise the funds to complete the certification in time to meet the FEMA-imposed certification deadlines.
government
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act
27 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 96:3
While FEMA has thus far been willing to cooperate with my office and the local officials in providing extensions of deadlines for certification, there remains a serious possibility that many Americans will see their flood insurance premiums skyrocket because their local governments where unable to comply with these unreasonable federal demands. In some cases, people may even loose their flood insurance completely.
government
Resolution On Situation In Burma
2 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma, particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to “take appropriate action” with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.
government
Resolution On Situation In Burma
2 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 97:2
More importantly, perhaps, I am concerned that while going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home. Certainly it is objectionable that the Burmese government holds its own citizens in jails without trial. But what about the secret prisons that our own CIA operates around the globe that hold thousands of individuals indefinitely and without trial? Certainly it is objectionable that the government of Burma can declare Aung San Suu Kyi a political prisoner to be held in confinement. But what about the power that Congress has given the president to declare anyone around the world, including American citizens, “enemy combatants” subject to indefinite detention without trial? What about the “military commissions act” that may well subject Americans to military trial with secret evidence permitted and habeas corpus suspended?
government
Statement Introducing American Freedom Agenda Act Of 2007
15 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 98:2
This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos.
government
House Financial Services Committee – Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy
17 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have consistently favored a policy of non-intervention with regard both to foreign affairs and to economic policy. While there may well be problems with the Russian economy in terms of failed privatization, government expropriation of assets, etc., there is no reason that these issues should concern the United States government.
government
House Financial Services Committee – Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy
17 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 99:3
While I empathize with the investors who have lost money through the Yukos incident, the fact remains that markets are fraught with risk. Our loose monetary policy and stimulation of credit have led to expectations of permanent positive economic growth. The technology bubble and the housing bubble have caused many to believe that markets can only go up. When bubbles burst, when stocks decline, something must have gone awry, and the government is called upon to right the wrong.
government
House Financial Services Committee – Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy
17 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 99:4
While many innocent investors are lured into the stock market as a result of our flawed expansionary government policies leading to visions of ever-increasing wealth, and may not be entirely at fault for their losses, the principle of caveat emptor seems to have been forgotten. In the case of a burst asset bubble or a stock's decline in price, some investors will lose out. It might be painful, it may have come about through injustice and government meddling, but government wrongdoing cannot be undone by more government wrongdoing.
government
House Financial Services Committee – Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy
17 October 2007 2007 Ron Paul 99:5
Neither a bailout, as in the case of the housing bubble, nor attempted government pressure on a foreign government, as in the case of Yukos, are appropriate reactions to the losses of investors. I wish the investors affected in the Yukos incident well, but urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to intervene in Russia's internal affairs.
government
Legislation Allowing Interstate Shipment Of Unpasteurized Milk
5 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 101:2
My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the State and local level.
government
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Chairman, our economy finds itself in a precarious state. Oil prices are rising, gold is nearing all-time highs, and the dollar is nearing all-time lows. The root of this crisis, as with past financial and economic crises, results from federal government intervention into the economy, not to anything endemic to the market, nor to the the actions of market participants.
government
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:2
The collapse of the housing market has served as a catalyst for the economy's latest bust. For years the federal government has made it one of its prime aims to encourage homeownership among people who otherwise would not be able to afford homes. Various federal mortgage programs through the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have distorted the normal workings of the housing market.
government
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:3
The implicit government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provides investors an incentive to provide funds to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been put to use in other sectors of the economy. It was this flood of investor capital that helped to fuel the housing bubble.
government
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:4
Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. The requirement of a down payment has always helped to ascertain the ability of a buyer to pay off a mortgage. It requires the buyer to show hard work and thrift, the ability to delay present consumption in order to make a larger acquisition in the future.
government
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:8
It is time that the federal government get out of the housing business. Through our interventionist legislation we have caused the boom and bust, and any attempts at reform that fail to address the causes of our current problem will only sow the seeds for the next b
government
Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the U.S. government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
government
Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 106:3
There are many causes for concern in H.R. 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward U.S. government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
government
Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 106:5
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
government
Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 106:7
Legislation such as this demands heavy- handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally- protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
government
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 109:2
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the Federal Government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see!
government
Introducing The Free Competition In Currency Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of U.S. Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the Government to shut down private mints. As anticounterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 U.S.C. 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters.
government
Introducing The Free Competition In Currency Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 110:4
As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the Government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5140
29 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 2:1
Madame Speaker, I find it odd that HR 5140, a bill allegedly designed to provide a stimulus for the anemic American economy, contains provisions that could damage the economy and hurt American taxpayers. Specifically, the provisions increasing the loan limitations of the Federal Housing Administration and the Government Sponsored Enterprises (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), will exacerbate the long-term problems in the housing market, and may even lead to a future taxpayer bailout of the housing industry. The recent bursting of the housing bubble should have taught my colleagues the dangers of government polices that distort the market by diverting resources to housing, when those resources would be more efficiently used in other sectors of the economy.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5140
29 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 2:3
A one-time “rebate” check, while it may provide a temporary boost to many working American families struggling with the current downturn, is not going to provide the type of sustained income growth necessary to restore consumer confidence. In fact, history shows that when the government forgoes serious tax cuts in favor of one-time “rebates” most people either save the money for a “rainy day” or use it to pay down some of their debt.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5140
29 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 2:7
Tax cuts by themselves will not restore long-term economic health unless and until this body finally addresses the fundamental cause of our economic instability, which is monetary policy. The inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve are the root of the boom-and-bust cycle that has plagued the American economy for almost 75 years. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary polices are also at the root of the steady decline in the American people’s standard of living. A good step toward monetary reform would be for Congress to pass my HR 2576, which repeals the federal legal tender laws. This would allow people to use alternatives to government-issued fiat money and thus protect themselves from Federal Reserve-created inflation.
government
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5104
30 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 3:2
The mis-named Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:
government
Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5104
30 January 2008 2008 Ron Paul 3:5
We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government’s illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens , not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to “upgrade” FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:4
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:5
At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:6
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:8
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:11
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:12
The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:13
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.
government
Statement on Competing Currencies
February 13, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 4:15
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.
government
TRIBUTE TO GULF COPPER & MANUFACTURING
14 February 2008 2008 Ron Paul 5:3
Gulf Copper’s customer list includes most major U.S. commercial ship operators as well as the U.S. Government Maritime Administration, Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Military Sealift Command.
government
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 26, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 8:3
By setting the federal funds rate, the rate at which banks in the Federal Reserve System loan funds to each other, the Federal Reserve inhibits the actions of market participants coming together to determine a market interest rate. The Federal Reserve and the federal government do not deign to interfere in setting the price of houses, the interest rate on mortgages, or the prices of wood and steel. The Fed’s actions in setting the federal funds rate however, because it reflects the price of money to a borrower and thus affects demand for money, affects prices throughout the economy in a manner less pervasive but just as damaging as direct price controls.
government
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 26, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 8:5
The setting of the interest rate strikes me as quite similar to the way FDR used to set gold prices in the 1930’s, at his whim, resulting in economic havoc and uncertainty. When market actors have to devote much of their time to discerning the mindset of government price-setters, to parsing FOMC statements and minutes, they are necessarily diverted from productive economic activity. They cease to become purely economic actors and are forced to become political forecasters. This is not a problem isolated to this particular case, as businesses are forced to reckon with tax increases, expiring tax credits, import tariffs, subsidies to competitors, etc. However, because the interest rate determines the cost of borrowing and therefore determines whether or not marginal long-term business investments are undertaken, this politicized interest rate manipulation has far more impact than other government policies.
government
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 27, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 9:2
A topic that is on the lips of many people during the past few months, and one with which I have greatly concerned myself, is that of moral hazard. We hear cries from all corners, from politicians, journalists, economists, businessmen, and citizens, clamoring for the federal government to intervene in the economy in order to forestall a calamitous recession. During the boom, many of these same individuals called for no end to the Fed’s easy credit. Now that the consequences of that easy money policy are coming home to roost, no one wants to face those ill effects.
government
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 27, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 9:4
Some drastic proposals have called for the federal government to purchase existing mortgages and take upon itself the process of rewriting these and guaranteeing the resulting new mortgages. Aside from exposing the government to tens of billions of dollars of potentially defaulting mortgages, the burden of which will ultimately fall on the taxpayers, this type of plan would embed the federal government even deeper into the housing market and perpetuate instability. The Congress has, over the past decades, relentlessly pushed for increased rates of homeownership among people who have always been viewed by the market as poor credit risks. Various means and incentives have been used by the government, but behind all the actions of lenders has been an implicit belief in a federal bailout in the event of a crisis.
government
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 27, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 9:5
What all of these proposed bailouts fail to mention is the moral hazard to which bailouts lead. If the federal government bails out banks, investors, or homeowners, the lessons of sound investment and fiscal discipline will not take hold. We can see this in the financial markets in the boom and bust of the business cycle. The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates results in malinvestment which, when it is discovered, leads to economic contraction and liquidation of malinvested resources. But the Fed never allows a complete shakeout, so that before a return to a sound market can occur, the Fed has already bailed out numerous market participants by undertaking another bout of loose money before the effects of the last business cycle have worked their way through the economy.
government
Foreign Government Investment in the U.S. Economy and Financial Sector
March 5, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 11:4
Rather than bemoaning the fact that foreign governments are using their dollars to purchase stakes in American companies, we should welcome the stability that such investment is bringing to our economy. While I am reluctant as anyone in this room to involve any government in any sort of intervention into the market, the fact remains that without injections of capital from foreign wealth funds the results of the subprime crisis would have been far worse for many financial firms. Even now we read that Citigroup, despite the massive funding it has received from sovereign wealth funds, is in danger of collapse unless it receives additional funding.
government
The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008
11 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President’s veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody.
government
The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008
11 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 13:2
Mr. Speaker, we have all read the disturbing reports of individuals apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon which we pride ourselves.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:2
The illegal tools of the state brought Spitzer down, but think of all the harm done by Spitzer in using the same tools against so many other innocent people. He practiced what could be termed “economic McCarthyism,” using illegitimate government power to build his political career on the ruined lives of others.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:3
No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:4
For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation – that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing — is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:5
Though Spitzer used the same tools to destroy individuals charged with economic crimes that ended up being used against him, gloating over his downfall should not divert our attention from the fact that the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the fourth amendment.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:9
Recently we’ve been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:10
Spitzer was brought down because he legally withdrew cash from a bank – not because he committed a crime. This should prompt us to reassess and hopefully reverse this trend of pervasive government intrusion in our private lives.
government
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:18
What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!
government
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.
government
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:4
The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.
government
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:5
Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.
government
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:6
This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.
government
Statement on H Res 997
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 16:2
This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US , in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.
government
Statement on H Res 997
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 16:3
NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The “modernization” of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.
government
Expressing concern over Russian involvement in Alexander Litvinenko’s murder
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 17:2
The resolution purports to express concern over the apparent murder in London of a shadowy former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, but let us not kid ourselves. The real purpose is to attack the Russian government by suggesting that Russia is involved in the murder. There is little evidence of this beyond the feverish accusations of interested parties. In fact, we may ultimately discover that Litvinenko’s death by radiation poisoning was the result of his involvement in an international nuclear smuggling operation, as some investigative reporters have claimed. The point is that we do not know. The House of Representatives has no business inserting itself in disputes about which we lack information and jurisdiction.
government
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:2
I have never been opposed to regulation, although my idea of regulation differs from that of many people in Washington. The free market and its forces of supply and demand are the most effective regulator of the private sector, and have never been known to fail absent government intervention. But piling more public sector regulation on the private sector will have a detrimental effect on the health of our financial system and sow the seeds for the next financial meltdown.
government
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:4
Back in the 1970s, government-caused inflation reached levels high enough that the Nixon administration decided to implement wage and price controls. Placing blame on greedy speculators, unscrupulous mortgage originators, or panicky investors, is a common reaction on the part of government.
government
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:5
The solution called for, despite the numerous documented failures of government regulation, is always more regulation, more government involvement in and control over the economy, and less free enterprise. Never is the blame placed squarely where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of legislators and regulators whose actions distort the market, prohibiting legitimate market activities and encouraging the development of labyrinthine and opaque financial schemes.
government
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:6
The latest regulatory plan from the Treasury Department, with the potential to turn the Federal Reserve into a super-regulator overseeing state-chartered banks, bank holding companies, and acting as a guarantor of market stability, is another in a long line of half-baked government responses to financial difficulty. Recession after recession has not impressed upon government leaders the reality that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy activities are what lead to market instability.
government
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:8
Every government intervention will result in a distortion of the market and a subsequent shock somewhere down the line in the future. It is about time that we recognize the failure of government intervention, get our hands out of the private sector, and for once allow the market to function.
government
Statement Before the Financial Services Committee, On UIGEA
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 19:2
I stand opposed to the regulations being discussed today because I opposed the underlying bill upon which these regulations are based. The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet.
government
Statement Before the Financial Services Committee, On UIGEA
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 19:3
The proper role of the federal government is not that of a nanny, protecting citizens from any and every potential negative consequence of their actions. Although I personally believe gambling to be a dumb waste of money, American citizens should be just as free to spend their money playing online poker as they should be able to buy a used car, enter into a mortgage, or invest in a hedge fund. Risk is inherent in any economic activity, and it is not for the government to determine which risky behaviors Americans may or may not engage in.
government
Statement Before the Financial Services Committee, On UIGEA
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 19:4
The Internet is a powerful tool, and any censorship of Internet activity sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans rely on the Internet for activities as varied as watching basketball games, keeping up on international news broadcasts, or buying food and clothing. In the last few years we have seen ominous signs of the federal government’s desire to control the Internet. The ostensible reasons are to protect Americans from sex offenders, terrorists, and the evils of gambling, but once the door is open to government intrusion, there is no telling what legitimate activity, especially political activity, might fall afoul of government authorities.
government
Statement Before the Financial Services Committee, On UIGEA
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 19:5
The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own.
government
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:2
S. 1858 gives the Federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously doubt that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the Federal Government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the Federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing Federal funding because they did not adopt the “federally approved” plan for newborn screening. Thus, this bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care.
government
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:3
As the Federal Government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing Government officials and State-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.
government
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:4
In fact, by directing Federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a “public health” disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of “emergency.” Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families’ medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a Government-declared health emergency, while the Federal Government will be very unlikely to relinquish its new powers when the emergency passes.
government
NEWBORN SCREENING SAVES LIVES ACT OF 2007
8 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 20:5
I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down Federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local Governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any Federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons, Madam Speaker, that I oppose S. 1858.
government
Comments at Hearing Questions for the Witnesses, General David H. Petraeus, USA and The Honorable Ryan C. Crocker
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 21:4
Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq? If (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki is our ally and he has “diplomatic relations” with (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran, just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq not guarantee chaos for years to come?
government
Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony
April 9 2008 2008 Ron Paul 22:2
Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the “dead-enders” from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious “Special Groups” that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
government
Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony
April 9 2008 2008 Ron Paul 22:5
It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government may have been approved by the United States, but essentially it was made in Iran. The leading political parties of Iraq, the DAWA and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council have close ties to Iran. Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the US invasion of Iraq. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying, particularly considering that Iran itself regularly holds elections where a wide variety of political parties compete for power.
government
Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony
April 9 2008 2008 Ron Paul 22:6
It is alleged that the rockets fired into the Green Zone during the recent clashes in Baghdad and Basra were made in 2007 in Iran. Is it not true, however, that if the Iranian government were to actually arm the Iraqi militias, these groups would have more modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks? Is there any hard proof that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq? There are reports that thousands of US weapons have gone missing in Iraq. If some of these turn up in the hands of insurgents, would it make sense to suggest that the US government is intentionally arming them?
government
Opening Statement, Petraeus and Crocker Testimony
April 9 2008 2008 Ron Paul 22:7
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Iran is trying to prevent the further destabilization of Iraq, which makes sense considering that Iran is next door and would keenly feel the effects of an Iraq fallen into civil war. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Iranian government has condemned attacks on the “Green Zone” in Iraq. According to other press reports, the government of Iran brokered a ceasefire after recent Iraqi government moves against elements of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra.
government
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:3
Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue — the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.
government
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:4
Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars.
government
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:5
Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
government
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:6
Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit.
government
Statement on Earmark Reform
April 9, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 23:7
Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority — restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget.
government
Tribute to Bernie Baltic
April 15th 2008 2008 Ron Paul 24:2
Any politician or bureaucrat at any level of government who threatened individual liberty was sure to hear from Mr. Baltic. Mr. Baltic also worked to educate and mobilize his fellow citizens in the cause of liberty through writing letters to the editor, and by directly challenging anti-liberty officials at forums such as city council meetings. In addition to his own activities, Mr. Baltic generously shared his support and counsel with numerous organizations that work to advance the cause of liberty.
government
Tribute to Bernie Baltic
April 15th 2008 2008 Ron Paul 24:3
Perhaps Mr. Baltic’s most lasting contribution to the freedom movement came when then-President of the Advocates for Self Government Marshall Fritz showed Mr. Baltic a computer game Mr. Fritz developed that identified an individual’s political philosophy based on responses to ten questions on economic issues and ten questions on civil liberties. Mr. Baltic, who was quite impressed with the chart, suggested that the Advocates produce business-card sized versions of the graph and quiz. The result was the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” one of the freedom movement’s most recognized and effective outreach tools.
government
Submersible Vehicles
24 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it strikes me as unconstitutional to make it a Federal crime to operate a submersible or semi-submersible vehicle that is not registered with a country if it navigates through international waters. I believe that this amendment, aside from being unconstitutional, is dangerously broad and may well lead to the persecution of individuals who are in no way engaging in illegal activity. I am concerned that this may lead to the prosecution of, for example, a scientific organization that builds and operates a submersible research vessel and operates it in international waters. Are these organizations going to be forced to register their activities with the U.S. Government or face a 20 year jail term? The real intent of this amendment is to add yet another draconian weapon in the arsenal of the government’s failed war on drugs. This amendment may well have chilling unintended consequences for individuals and organizations that have nothing to do with drug or human smuggling and as such I cannot support the Poe amendment.
government
Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.”
May 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194, mainly because this legislation reads like an authorization to use force in Lebanon. As the key resolved clause of H. Res. 1194 states: Resolved, That the House of Representatives — * * * * * (6) urges— (A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;
government
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the American shrimp industry is a textbook example of a great American business crippled by foolish government policies. Congress and the federal bureaucracy have burdened shirmpers with needless regulations and laws that dramatically raise shrimpers’ cost of doing business while subsidizing American shrimpers’ overseas competitors. Unless Congress soon reverses course and repeals these destructive government policies, many shrimpers will be forced out of business.
government
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:3
The federal government has also imposed numerous regulations on shrimpers dealing with use of items such as bycatch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). Madam Speaker, it is common to speak of the negative effects of regulations as “unintended consequences.” However, it is difficult to speak of the effects of the TEDS on shrimpers as unintended consequences when the National Marine Fisheries Service heard industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry present first-hand testimony on how these TEDS regulations would harm shrimpers.
government
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.
government
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:5
In order to stop the federal government from punishing shrimpers with unfair regulations and forcing them to subsidize their major competitors, I introduced the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This legislation would place a moratorium on any restrictive regulations negatively impacting the shrimp industry and prevent any taxpayer money from going to any country that exported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp to the Untied States in the previous six months. However, Congress chose not to even take these simple steps to help the American shrimp industry.
government
CONGRESS MUST ACT TO HELP SHRIMPERS
19 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 36:7
Madam Speaker, it is still not too late or Congress to help the shrimp industry. Congress should immediately end subsidies to American shrimpers’ foreign competitors, place a moratorium on harmful regulations imposed on the shrimp industry, and take action to reduce fuel prices by expanding the supply of oil. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to fix the misguided government policies that are harming America shrimpers.
government
FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
20 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 38:2
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
government
FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
20 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 38:4
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
government
DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY
26 June 2008 2008 Ron Paul 40:2
We do know that there is a supply and demand, there’s a lot of demand for oil. The supplies may be dwindling. But there are other reasons for high costs of energy. One is inflation. For instance, to pay for the war that has been going on and the domestic spending, we have been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve to create new money. In the last 3 years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and our banking system, created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy in $4 gallon gasoline.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:10
The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we’ll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:18
This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I’m convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone — especially the U.S. Congress that doesn’t care, or just flat doesn’t understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:20
The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don’t have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:23
One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That’s the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30’s might look like Jefferson ’s Declaration of Independence.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:24
The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:26
If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn’t take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it’s possible is what is urgently needed.
government
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:27
One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one’s own life can be achieved. This doesn’t happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can’t provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else’s freedom. It’s a failed system and the young people know it.
government
BLOCKADE OF IRAN
10 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 43:9
Now, the question I would like to pose here for our Members is this: How would we as Americans and how would we as a government react if a strong government came and did that to us? What if another government came and said we are going to restrict the importation of petroleum products and we are going to inspect all vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo? We wouldn’t know what that would mean. How could they do that without an embargo? This is militant language, it is just looking for trouble, and it will not help solve the situation.
government
Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy
July 16, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Chairman, today we find ourselves on the verge of an economic crisis the likes of which the United States has not seen in decades. Our economy is very clearly in a recession, and every time someone tells us that the worst has passed, another serious event takes place, as we saw once again last week and early this week. Everyone now realizes that the situation is dire, yet either no one understands the cause behind the credit crisis, or no one is willing to take the necessary steps to ensure as orderly an end to the crisis as possible. Instead, we hear talk of further bailouts. The Fed-brokered takeover of Bear Stearns, a supposed one-off incident, has now been joined by a potential bailout of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
government
Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy
July 16, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 46:2
The two GSE’s have been disasters waiting to happen, as I and many others have warned over the years. It was bad enough that Fannie and Freddie were able to operate with significant advantages, such as lower borrowing costs and designation of their debt as government debt. Now, the implicit government backstop has turned out to be an explicit backstop, just as we feared. The Greenspan reflation of the economy after the dot-com bust pumped additional liquidity into an already-skewed housing market, leading to an unsustainable boom that from many accounts has only begun to unravel. With a current federal funds rate of two percent, and inflation at over four percent, the Fed is currently sowing the seeds for another economic bubble.
government
Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy
July 16, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 46:3
At the heart of this economic malaise is the Fed’s poor stewardship of the dollar. The cause of the dollar’s demise is not the result of a purely psychological response to public statements on US dollar policy, but is rather a reaction to a massive increase in the money supply brought about by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. The policies that led to hemorrhaging of gold during the 1960’s and the eventual closing of the gold standard are the same policies that are leading to the dollar’s decline in international currency markets today. Foreign governments no longer wish to hold depreciating dollars, and would prefer to hold stronger currencies such as the euro. Foreign investors no longer wish to hold underperforming dollars, and seek to hold better-performing assets such as ports and beer companies.
government
Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy
July 16, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 46:4
Every government bailout or promise thereof leads to moral hazard, the likelihood that market actors will take ever riskier actions with the belief that the federal government will bail them out. Bear Stearns was bailed out, Fannie and Freddie will be bailed out, but where will the line be drawn? The precedent has been established and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill in these cases, but the federal government and the Federal Reserve lack the resources to bail out every firm that is deemed “too big to fail.” Decades of loose monetary policy will lead to a financial day of reckoning, and bailouts, liquidity injections, and lowering of the federal funds rate will only delay the inevitable and ensure that the final correction will be longer and more severe than it otherwise would. For the sake of the economy, I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to give in to political expediency, and to oppose loose monetary policy and any further bailouts.
government
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:1
Madam Speaker, For several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and took other steps to disengage the US Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing. This crisis would force Congress to chose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing government’s involvement in housing, or restoring a free-market in housing by ending government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near-collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, instead of ending the prior interventions in the housing market that are responsible for the current crisis, Congress is increasing the level of government intervention in the housing market. This is the equivalent of giving a drug addict another fix, which will only make the necessary withdrawal more painful.
government
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:2
The provision giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check to purchase Fannie and Freddie stock not only makes the implicit government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie explicit, it represents another unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ Constitutional authority to control the allocation of taxpayer dollars. While the Treasury Secretary has to file a report with Congress, the lack of any effective standards for the expenditure of funds makes it impossible for Congress to perform effective oversight on Treasury’s expenditures.
government
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:4
Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the federal government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the Fourth Amendment support this new threat to privacy.
government
Statement on Senate amendments to HR 5501, Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 49:2
As we know, the federal government does not have $48 billion to send overseas so it will have to print the money. It is a cruel irony that this will add to inflation at home which will increase even further the costs of healthcare in the United States .
government
Full Committee Hearing on “Implications of a Weaker Dollar for Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy”
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 50:3
In Germany in the 1920s, South America in the 1980s, and Zimbabwe today, everyone recognizes that inflation was caused by the government running the printing presses non-stop, with the resulting exponential rise in prices being the necessary result of monetary growth. Yet somehow, both the empirical and theoretical reality of inflation as a rise in money supply is ignored in this country. Inflation is conflated with price inflation, the increase in the overall price level, and is viewed as something both endogenous to the market economy while at the same time influenced by exogenous price shocks.
government
Full Committee Hearing on “Implications of a Weaker Dollar for Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy”
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 50:5
Until the cause of inflation is understood, no effective strategy can be undertaken to combat it. The problem, however, is that the government does not want inflation to be done away with. Inflation benefits debtors and harms creditors, and the United States government is the biggest debtor of all. The United States government, the banking monopoly under the Federal Reserve System, and politically-connected firms and industries are the first entities to take advantage of new money injected into the system, before prices increase. As the increased supply of money begins to chase the same number of goods, prices rise, and the average American suffers. Poor and middle class Americans are always the hardest hit by inflation, as the weakening dollar makes the imported goods that many Americans depend on more expensive.
government
Full Committee Hearing on “Implications of a Weaker Dollar for Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy”
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 50:6
As Chairman Bernanke admitted last week, inflation is a tax, and it is the most pernicious because of its hidden nature. It taxes the very purchasing power of money, and because the inflation rate in recent years has generally been low, its effects often take a while to manifest themselves. Now that inflation is beginning to rise, more and more rhetoric is being spun to hide the government’s role in creating inflation. I applaud Chairman Frank for holding this hearing, as hearings such as this one investigating the link between the weak dollar and the high price of oil are more important now than ever.
government
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, for several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit Government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and took other steps to disengage the U.S. Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing. This crisis would force Congress to chose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing Government’s involvement in housing, or restoring a free market in housing by ending Government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near-collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, instead of ending the prior interventions in the housing market that are responsible for the current crisis, Congress is increasing the level of Government intervention in the housing market. This is the equivalent of giving a drug addict another fix, which will only make the necessary withdrawal more painful.
government
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:2
The provision giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check to purchase Fannie and Freddie stock not only makes the implicit Government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie explicit, it represents another unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ constitutional authority to control the allocation of taxpayer dollars. While the Treasury Secretary has to file a report with Congress, the lack of any effective standards for the expenditure of funds makes it impossible for Congress to perform effective oversight on Treasury’s expenditures.
government
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:4
Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the Federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the Federal Government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a Federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the fourth amendment support this new threat to privacy.
government
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which is yet another meaningless but provocative condemnation of China . It is this kind of jingoism that has led to such a low opinion of the United States abroad. Certainly I do not condone human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, but as Members of the US House of Representatives we have no authority over the Chinese government. It is our Constitutional responsibility to deal with abuses in our own country or those created abroad by our own foreign policies. Yet we are not debating a bill to close Guantanamo , where abuses have been documented. We are not debating a bill to withdraw from Iraq , where scores of innocents have been killed, injured, and abused due to our unprovoked attack on that country. We are not debating a bill to reverse the odious FISA bill passed recently which will result in extreme abuses of Americans by gutting the Fourth Amendment.
government
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:2
Instead of addressing these and scores of other pressing issues over which we do have authority, we prefer to spend our time criticizing a foreign government over which we have no authority and foreign domestic problems about which we have very little accurate information.
government
Statement on H. RES. 1370 Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens
July 30, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 54:3
I do find it ironic that this resolution “calls on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to begin earnest negotiations, without preconditions, directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives.” For years US policy has been that no meeting or negotiation could take place with Iran until certain preconditions are met by Iran . Among these is a demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment, which Iran has the right to do under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is little wonder why some claim that resolutions like this are hypocritical.
government
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:3
The “Academic Bill of Rights” is a response to concerns that federally-funded institutions of higher learner are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of “political correctness” on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their “politically correct” views regardless of whether this type of instruction benefits their students (who are, after all, the professors’ customers). Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of “political correctness” to justify more federal control over college classrooms.
government
Statement on HR 4137
August 1, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 56:4
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide-raging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the ”Academic Bill of Rights” will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the federal government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the sixties and seventies in order to avoid running afoul of the federal “fairness doctrine.”
government
Statement on Sovereign Wealth Funds
September 10, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. Chairman, once again we confront the issue of sovereign wealth funds, an issue which has become quite important due to the large amount of dollars and dollar-denominated bonds held by foreign governments, and the fears of these governments given the dollar’s precipitous decline over the past few years. The past few days have been quite interesting, with speculation that one of the reasons for the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the more than $1 trillion in Fannie and Freddie debt held by foreign governments. The threat of default on this debt would have undoubtedly had massive repercussions on the value of the dollar and might have unleashed the “nuclear threat” of a massive international sell-off of government and agency debt.
government
Statement on Sovereign Wealth Funds
September 10, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 58:2
The United States government now finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The massive amounts of debt that we have allowed to accumulate are hanging over us like Damocles’ sword. Foreign governments such as Russia and China hold large amounts of government and agency bonds, and there are fears that as our creditors they will exert leverage over us. At the same time, as the dollar weakens, the desire to sell bonds and purchase better performing assets increases, leading to fears from others that foreign governments will attempt to purchase American national champion companies, or invest in strategic industries to gain sensitive technologies.
government
Statement on Sovereign Wealth Funds
September 10, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 58:4
Debtors cannot continue building debts forever, and we now face strong indications that our creditors are eager to begin collecting what is owed them. It is not too late to correct our mistakes, but we must act now and cannot dally. We must drastically reduce government spending, end wasteful and disastrous interventions into financial markets, and rein in the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy. Failing to do so will ensure a descent into financial catastrophe.
government
“The Future of Financial Services: Exploring Solutions for the Market Crisis”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. Chairman, It is truly a shame that, less than two decades after the fall of communism, the lessons of price control are completely lost on most Washington power-brokers. The Treasury proposal before Congress is nothing more than a form of price control, an attempt to keep asset prices artificially elevated. The root of our recent economic boom, as in any other business cycle, was government intervention into the market under the guise of lowering the interest rate, which is itself a price. The function that prices play in the market in equalizing supply and demand, and the distortions that necessarily accompany each government effort at price-fixing, are forgotten by too many in Washington.
government
“The Future of Financial Services: Exploring Solutions for the Market Crisis”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 59:2
One of the primary causes for the length and severity of the Great Depression in this country was the federal government’s attempts at keeping prices artificially elevated. A typical example of getting causation backward, the federal government assumed that falling prices caused the depression, whereas in reality the falling prices were the result of the economic depression, and were necessary to bring the economy back into equilibrium. In its attempt to keep agricultural prices high, the federal government began to pay farmers to destroy their crops, while unemployed people lined up at soup kitchens around the country.
government
“The Future of Financial Services: Exploring Solutions for the Market Crisis”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 59:5
The only viable solution to this financial crisis is to keep the government from intervening any further. The Federal Reserve has already loaned hundreds of billions of dollars through its numerous lending facilities, and the Congress has passed legislation authorizing further hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Fannie and Freddie, yet each successive crisis event seems to be advertised as larger and more severe than the previous one. It is time that this Congress put its foot down, reject the administration’s proposal, and allow the bust to work itself out so that our economic hangover is not as severe as it might otherwise be.
government
“The Economic Outlook”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our economy faces a bleak future, particularly if the latest $700 billion bailout plan ends up passing. We risk committing the same errors that prolonged the misery of the Great Depression, namely keeping prices from falling. Instead of allowing overvalued financial assets to take a hit and trade on the market at a more realistic value, the government seeks to purchase overvalued or worthless assets and hold them in the unrealistic hope that at some point in the next few decades, someone might be willing to purchase them.
government
“The Economic Outlook”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 60:2
One of the perverse effects of this bailout proposal is that the worst-performing firms, and those who interjected themselves most deeply into mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and special investment vehicles will be those who benefit the most from this bailout. As with the bailout of airlines in the aftermath of 9/11, those businesses who were the least efficient, least productive, and least concerned with serving consumers are those who will be rewarded for their mismanagement with a government handout, rather than the failure of their company that is proper to the market. This creates a dangerous moral hazard, as the precedent of bailing out reckless lending will lead to even more reckless lending and irresponsible behavior on the part of financial firms in the future.
government
“The Economic Outlook”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 60:3
This bailout is a slipshod proposal, slapped together haphazardly and forced on an unwilling Congress with the threat that not passing it will lead to the collapse of the financial system. Some of the proposed alternatives are no better, for instance those which propose a government equity share in bailed-out companies. That we have come to a point where outright purchases of private sector companies is not only proposed but accepted by many who claim to be defenders of free markets bodes ill for the future of American society.
government
“The Economic Outlook”
September 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 60:4
As with many other government proposals, the opportunity cost of this bailout goes unmentioned. $700 billion tied up in illiquid assets is $700 billion that is not put to productive use. That amount of money in the private sector could be used to research new technologies, start small business that create thousands of jobs, or upgrade vital infrastructure. Instead, that money will be siphoned off into unproductive assets which may burden the government for years to come. The great French economist Frederic Bastiat is famous for explaining the difference between what is seen and what is unseen. In this case the bailout’s proponents see the alleged benefits, while they fail to see the jobs, businesses, and technologies not created due to this utter waste of money.
government
INTRODUCING THE EVACUEES TAX RELIEF ACT
24 September 2008 2008 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2008, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to December of 2007, so it is available to Hurricane Ike evacuees, as well as those who evacuated because of Hurricanes Gustav and Dolly.
government
CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009
24 September 2008 2008 Ron Paul 63:3
Another particularly objectionable part of H.R. 2638 is the section providing $7.5 billion in loan guarantees for the auto industry. In exchange for the loans, the industry must agree to produce the type of automobiles favored by federal bureaucrats. Thus, this bill not only increases corporate welfare, it empowers federal bureaucrats to displace the judgment of consumers as to where the auto industry should concentrate its resources. As the failure of every centrally planed economy throughout history shows, when government officials usurp the decisions of consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs the result is economic stagnation.
government
Earmark Declaration
27 September 2008 2008 Ron Paul 64:5
Description of Request: Provides $5,000,000 for the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge Replacement. Today, 21 thousand barges move 29 million tons of cargo worth $10 billion through the Galveston Bridge each year. In 2001, after a lengthy review process, the bridge was declared a hazard to navigation by the Coast Guard under the Truman Hobbs Act. The current estimated cost of replacement is almost $68 million. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, under the Truman Hobbs Act. Under the Truman Hobbs Act, the Federal Government pays 90 percent of replacement cost and the bridge owner—Galveston County—pays 10 percent.
government
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:3
The most serious mistake that could be made here today is to blame free market capitalism for this problem. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism. This has to do with a managed economy, with an inflationary system, with corporatism, and with a special interest system. It has nothing to do with the failure of free markets and capitalism. Yet we’re resorting now, once again, to promoting more and more government.
government
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:15
But what politicians are willing to say that the financial “skyscraper”—the global financial and monetary system-is a house of cards. It is not going to happen at this juncture. They’re not even talking about this. They talk only of bailouts, more monetary inflation, more special interest spending, more debt, and more regulations. There is almost no talk of the relationship of the Community Reinvestment Act, HUD, and government assisted loans to the housing bubble. And there is no talk of the oversight that is desperately needed for the Federal Reserve, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and all the activities of the President’s Working Group on financial markets. When these actions are taken we will at last know that Congress is serious about the reforms that are really needed.
government
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:18
It is unconstitutional—There is no constitutional authority to use government power to serve special interests.
government
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:19
It is bad economic policy—By refusing to address the monetary system while continuing to place the burdens of the bailout on the dollar, we can be certain that in time, we will be faced with another, more severe crisis when the market figures out that there is no magic government bailout or regulation that can make a fraudulent monetary system work.
government
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 67:3
One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the federal government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place.
government
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 67:4
With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption.
government
UNTITLED
3 October 2008 2008 Ron Paul 68:2
I think one of the reasons why we are floundering around here is that we don’t understand the problem because instead of it being a credit crunch, I think it is a lot more serious than that. That is, I think what is happening in the market today is signaling something much more draconian because it is probably telling us that our government is insolvent, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and big things are starting to happen. And we don’t quite understand it, so we fall back on the old cliches that what we need is more appropriations, more spending, more debt, and more credit in the market. That means more inflation by the Federal Reserve system. And yet, that is what caused the trouble.
government
Honoring Marshall Fritz
November 19, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 69:3
Marshall was a model of an ideological/political entrepreneur. In 1984, Marshall saw that the growth of the freedom movement was handicapped by the lack of an organization to help activists better communicate the freedom philosophy to the general public. While Marshall was not the first person to have this realization, he was the first person to attempt to remedy the situation by founding Advocates for Self-Government, an organization designed to teach activists how to effectively communicate their principles.
government
Honoring Marshall Fritz
November 19, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 69:4
In the years since Marshall founded the Advocates for Self-Government, the organization has helped countless libertarians by providing them with the intellectual resources necessary to effectively battle for a free society.
government
Honoring Marshall Fritz
November 19, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 69:7
In 1990, Marshall stepped down as President of the Advocates to found the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, an organization focusing on the vital issue of parental control of education. Thanks in large part to Marshall’s work, the idea that parents, not the government, should control education is no longer excluded from public debate as a ”fringe“ notion. One of the features that most impresses me about the Alliance is the way that Marshall brought libertarians, conservatives, and liberals together to work for education freedom.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:2
Except for a rare few, Members of Congress are unaware of Austrian Free Market economics. For the last 80 years, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of our government have been totally influenced by Keynesian economics. If they had had any understanding of the Austrian economic explanation of the business cycle, they would have never permitted the dangerous bubbles that always lead to painful corrections.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:3
Today, a major economic crisis is unfolding. New government programs are started daily, and future plans are being made for even more. All are based on the belief that we’re in this mess because free-market capitalism and sound money failed. The obsession is with more spending, bailouts of bad investments, more debt, and further dollar debasement. Many are saying we need an international answer to our problems with the establishment of a world central bank and a single fiat reserve currency. These suggestions are merely more of the same policies that created our mess and are doomed to fail.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:10
Although it is obvious that the Keynesians were all wrong and interventionism and central economic planning don’t work, whom are we listening to for advice on getting us out of this mess? Unfortunately, it’s the Keynesians, the socialists, and big-government proponents.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:13
The policies of big-government proponents are running out of steam. Their policies have failed and will continue to fail. Merely doing more of what caused the crisis can hardly provide a solution.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:15
The basic problem is that proponents of big government require a central bank in order to surreptitiously pay bills without direct taxation. Printing needed money delays the payment. Raising taxes would reveal the true cost of big government, and the people would revolt. But the piper will be paid, and that’s what this crisis is all about.
government
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:17
The choice we face is ominous: We either accept world-wide authoritarian government holding together a flawed system, OR we restore the principles of the Constitution, limit government power, restore commodity money without a Federal Reserve system, reject world government, and promote the cause of peace by protecting liberty equally for all persons. Freedom is the answer.
government
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 72:6
There is no real talk about it. I mean, we’ve essentially nationalized the insurance companies, the mortgage companies, the banks, and medical care is moving in that direction, and now the car companies are going to be run by a car czar from this Congress. I mean, it is such an embarrassment. It is such an insult to us who believe in freedom, who believe in sound money and who believe in limited government. It is such an insult to the whole idea of what made America great, and this is what it has come to—bailout after bailout after bailout—and nobody even calls it what it really is. It is the nationalization of our industries.
government
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.
government
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:8
Unfortunately, instead of repealing regulations and cutting taxes, Congress is nationalizing the automakers by giving them access to $14 billion of taxpayer funds in return for giving the federal government control over the management of these firms. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has neither the competence nor the constitutional authority to tell private companies, such as automakers, how to run their businesses. Yet, the bailout proposal forces automobile manufacturers to submit their business plans for the approval of a federal “car czar.” This czar will not only have the authority to approve the automakers’ restructuring plan, but will also monitor implementation of the plans. The czar will also be able to stop transactions that are “inconsistent with the companies’ long-term viability.” Of course, the czar has the sole authority to determine what transactions are “inconsistent with the companies’ long-term viability.”
government
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:9
I would have thought that failed experiments with central planning and government control of business that wrought so much harm in the last century would have taught my colleagues the folly of making businesses obey politicians and bureaucrats instead of heeding the wishes of consumers, employees, and stockholders.
government
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:10
The alternative proposal is less costly to the taxpayer; therefore I will vote for it if offered as a motion to recommit. However, I am troubled that the proposal endorses the notion that the federal government should play both a financial and managerial role in restoring the American automobile industry. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we are not given a chance to vote for a true free-market approach; instead we are asked to choose between two types of government interference with the market.
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY TAX REDUCTION ACT AND THE SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX ELIMINATION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY TAX REDUCTION ACT AND THE SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX ELIMINATION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 1:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY TAX REDUCTION ACT AND THE SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX ELIMINATION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 1:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. This is why I am also introducing the Social Security Preservation Act, which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending continues to threaten the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARY TAX REDUCTION ACT AND THE SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX ELIMINATION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 1:4
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY PRESERVATION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 2:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on Web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security Administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. In 2005, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:9
Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a groundswell of opposition to this mandate. Several State legislatures have even passed laws forbidding their States from complying with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act not only repeals those sections of the federal law creating a national ID, it forbids the federal government from using federal funds to blackmail States into adopting uniform federal identifiers. Passing the Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this Congress to show renewed commitment to federalism and opposition to imposing unfunded mandates on the States.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:10
This legislation not only repeals those sections of federal law creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier – an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database?
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:11
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:12
Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:13
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:15
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping, private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:16
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:17
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:18
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:20
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 5:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen!
government
INTRODUCING THE SOCIAL SECURITY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 5:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. The prior administration actually proposed a totalization agreement that would have allowed thousands of foreigners to qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits even thought they came to, and worked in, the United States illegally. Adding insult to injury, this proposal could have allowed the federal government to give Social Security benefits to non-citizens who worked here for as little as 18 months. Estimates of what this totalization proposal would cost top one billion dollars per year.
government
THE SENIORS’ HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 6:3
Seniors’ right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration’s refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program!
government
THE SENIORS’ HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 6:5
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act.
government
Statement on H Res 34, Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
January 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 7:11
There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
government
Bailout
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 8:8
Then we subsidized the insurance. The government-subsidized insurance program further promoted the principle of moral hazard – people doing things, spending money and investing in the incorrect way.
government
Bailout
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 8:9
Then with the assumption that we’re all going to be bailed out, which we’re endorsing by bailing everybody out, people say, “Well, no sweat because, if there is a mistake, the government will come to our rescue.” That’s part of the system of the FDIC. Now, nobody can conceive of the notion that we could live without an FDIC, but the truth is that a private FDIC would never permit this massive malinvestment. There would be regulations done in the marketplace, and there would not be this distortion that we’ve ended up with.
government
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States.
government
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.
government
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
government
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
government
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the States from out-of-control Federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.
government
LIVING BENEATH OUR MEANS
January 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 10:5
Today’s middle class and poor are suffering and the elite are being bailed out, and all the while the Federal Reserve refuses to tell the Congress exactly who has benefitted by its largesse. The beneficial corrections that come with a recession, of debt liquidation and removing the malinvestment, are delayed by government bailouts. This strategy proved in the late 1930s to transform a recession into a Great Depression and will surely do so again.
government
More Spending Isn’t The Answer
January 22, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 11:5
Now we hear that there is a proposal, and we read about it in the paper, and I don’t know who came up with this, but it is the idea of having a bad bank. Let us create a government bad bank, and this bad bank is to take the bad debt from the bad bankers and dump these assets onto the good citizens. Well, I think that is a very bad idea. I mean, it doesn’t make any sense for the innocent American citizen to bear the burden.
government
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ALLOWING INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF UNPASTEURIZED MILK
January 28, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 12:2
My office has heard from numerous people who would like to obtain unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level.
government
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:4
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.
government
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:5
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
government
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:7
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
government
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:11
What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?
government
Humphrey-Hawkins Hearing Statement
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 18:2
We find ourselves mired in the deepest economic crisis to afflict this country since the Great Depression. Yet, despite the failure of all the interventionist efforts to date to do anything to improve the economy, each week seems to bring new proposals for yet more bailouts, more funding facilities, and more of the same discredited Keynesian ideas. There are still relatively few policymakers who understand the roots of the current crisis in the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy. No one in government is willing to take the blame, instead we transfer it onto others. We blame the crisis on greedy bankers and mortgage lenders, on the Chinese for being too thrifty and providing us with capital, or on consumers who aren’t spending as much as the government thinks they should.
government
Humphrey-Hawkins Hearing Statement
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 18:3
One aspect that needs to come to the fore once again is that of moral hazard. When the government acts as a backstop to insure losses that come about from making poor decisions, such poor decision making is rewarded, and thereby further encouraged in the future. Such backstopping took place through the implicit government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it takes place through FDIC deposit insurance that encourages deposits in the fundamentally unsound fractional-reserve banking system, and it has reached its zenith in the TARP program and its related bailouts.
government
Humphrey-Hawkins Hearing Statement
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 18:6
If banks begin to lend their increased reserves, we will see the first steps towards hyperinflation. Now that the Fed has increased the monetary base, it finds itself under pressure to withdraw these funds at some point. The question, however, is when? If it withdraws too soon, banks’ balance sheets collapse, if too late, massive inflation will ensue. As in previous crises, the Fed’s inflationary actions leave it compelled to take action that will severely harm the economy through either deflation or hyperinflation. Had the Fed not begun interfering 18 months ago, we might have already seen a recovery in the economy by now. Bad debts would have been liquidated, inefficient firms sold off and their resources put to better use elsewhere. As it is, I believe any temporary uptick in economic indicators nowadays will likely be misinterpreted as economic recovery rather than the result of Federal Reserve credit creation. Until we learn the lesson that government intervention cannot heal the economy, and can only do harm, we will never stabilize the economy or get on the road to true recovery.
government
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:3
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.
government
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:4
The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.
government
THE END IS NOT NEAR
March 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 21:2
We’re told that 50,000 U.S. troops will still be in Iraq in August of 2010, and we’re supposed to cheer. We’re told that they won’t be combat troops, so we’re to believe that means they won’t be exposed to any danger. If they are non-combat troops, does that mean they are bureaucrats, policemen, teachers or soldiers without weapons? This will hardly satisfy the Iraqis, who resent any foreign troops at all in their country. A U.S. puppet government protected by 50,000 American soldiers is not the road to peace.
government
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCING THE SUNLIGHT RULE
March 5, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 23:4
Madam Speaker, the practice of rushing bills to the floor before individual members have had a chance to study the bills is one of the major factors contributing to public distrust of Congress. Voting on bills before members have had time to study them makes a mockery of representative government and cheats the voters who sent us here to make informed decisions on public policy. Adopting the sunlight rule is one of, if not the, most important changes to the House rules this Congress could make to restore public trust in, and help preserve the integrity of, this institution. I hope my colleagues will support this change to the House rules.
government
THE FREEDOM TO BANK ACT
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing two unconstitutional and paternalistic federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month’s time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the federal government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication.
government
INTRODUCING THE CHILD HEALTH CARE AFFORDABILITY ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 27:7
Madam Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low- income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
government
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 28:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. For over a decade, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.
government
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.
government
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.
government
INTRODUCING THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE COALITION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 29:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.
government
TREAT PHYSICIANS FAIRLY ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 30:3
Forcing physicians to offer their services without providing any form of compensation is a blatant violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. After all, the professional skills with which one earns a living are a form of property. Therefore, legislation, such as EMTALA, which forces individuals to use their professional skills without compensation is a taking of private property. Regardless of whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish programs providing free-or-reduced health care for the indignant, the clear language of the takings clause prevents Congress from placing the entire burden of these programs on the medical profession.
government
TREAT PHYSICIANS FAIRLY ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 30:4
Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the health care market. When I began practicing, it was common for doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However, government laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they where acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increased health care costs associated with the government-facilitated over-reliance in third party payments priced more and more people out of the health care market. Thus, the government responded to problems created by their interventions by imposing EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making the health care profession scapegoats for the unintended consequences of failed government health care policies.
government
TREAT PHYSICIANS FAIRLY ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 30:5
EMTALA itself is having unintended consequences that could result in less care availability for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA provides a disincentive for physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians have told me in my district that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the federal government treats medical professionals! The tax credit of the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of these unintended consequences.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE FREEDOM FROM UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ACT
March 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 32:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.
government
Statement in Opposition to HR 1388 - National Service
March 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose HR 1388. The idea that it is legitimate for the federal government to take money from one group of citizens and use that money to bribe other citizens into performing “national service” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty that this country was founded upon.
government
Statement in Opposition to HR 1388 - National Service
March 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 33:2
I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform “community service” as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide “service” as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote “service,” legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration’s expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service?
government
Statement in Opposition to HR 1388 - National Service
March 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 33:4
Mr. Chair, millions of Americans including many young people, are already volunteering their time and talents to help their fellow citizens and better their communities without being bribed by the government. In fact, to suggest that the young Americans need a federal check as an incentive to volunteer is an insult to the American people. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty, the great American tradition of true volunteerism, and the Constitution by opposing H.R. 1388.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE CURES CAN BE FOUND ACT
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 36:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
government
GENERATIONS INVIGORATING VOLUNTEERISM AND EDUCATION ACT
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 1388. The idea that it is legitimate for the federal government to take money from one group of citizens and use that money to bribe other citizens into performing “national service” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty that this country was founded upon.
government
GENERATIONS INVIGORATING VOLUNTEERISM AND EDUCATION ACT
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 37:2
I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform “community service” as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide “service” as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote “service,” legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration’s expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service?
government
GENERATIONS INVIGORATING VOLUNTEERISM AND EDUCATION ACT
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 37:4
Mr. Chair, millions of Americans including many young people, are already volunteering their time and talents to help their fellow citizens and better their communities without being bribed by the government. In fact, to suggest that the young Americans need a federal check as an incentive to volunteer is an insult to the American people. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty, the great American tradition of true volunteerism, and the Constitution by opposing H.R. 1388.
government
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 39:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
government
RECOGNIZING 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF EGYPT-ISRAEL PEACE TREATY
March 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 40:3
What the resolution fails to mention, and the reason we should not endorse the treaty as a model, is that at the time the peace was being negotiated at Camp David the United States committed itself to an enormous financial aid package to both Egypt and Israel in exchange for their accession to the treaty. Over the past thirty years, the United States taxpayer has transferred to – some might say “bribed” – Israel and Egypt more well over $100 billion as a payoff for their leaders’ signature on the treaty. Particularly in this time of economic hardship, where so many Americans are out of work and facing great financial challenges, I hardly believe we should be celebrating that which increases the strain on taxpayers. I believe we should cease all foreign aid to all countries, as it is a counterproductive and unconstitutional transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to governments overseas.
government
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:6
Matter of fact, I think the problem we face today is not so much a budgetary problem. It’s much different. I think we talk a lot about the budget. Just think about how many hours we talked about it today. But the budget and the deficit is a symptom of something much more serious. And that is, what have we allowed our government to become? I think it has been the loss of respect by us here in the Congress to understand and take seriously article I, section A. If we did that, we wouldn’t be doing all of these things that we’re doing.
government
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:15
So the ones who live beyond their means get bailed out. And it’s a very bad, bad system that we have. And we have to decide what the role of government ought to be.
government
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:17
So we have to decide as a people what should the role of government be. And if we think the role of government is going to be, and should be, the policeman of the world and to run the welfare State, this budgetary problem will never be solved.
government
FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 43:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.
government
FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 43:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.
government
INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal Government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.
government
INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 44:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our Nation’s history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.
government
INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 44:7
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE HOPE PLUS SCHOLARSHIP ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 45:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction.
government
INTRODUCING THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program.
government
INTRODUCING THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 47:2
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand- wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
government
INTRODUCING THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 47:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:2
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIBERTY AMENDMENT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 50:6
Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
government
INTRODUCING THE PARENTAL CONSENT ACT
April 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 51:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental- health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.
government
HONORING JACK KEMP
May 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 53:3
In his later years, Jack was critical of the idea that the best way to promote human liberty was through an aggressively militaristic foreign policy. In his 1996 campaign for Vice President, Jack attacked the Clinton Administration’s aggressive foreign policy, famously quipping that the United States government should not “bomb before breakfast.” In my last conversation with Jack, he shared with me his opposition to the Iraq war.
government
AMERICA’S TREASURY IS BARE
May 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 54:6
So when will it ever end? We can’t even define the enemy. Who exactly is the enemy over there? Is it the al Qaeda? The Taliban? Is it the Government of Pakistan? If you can’t define the enemy, how do you know when the war is over? If we are in war, which we are, how can this be anything other than war? When was this war declared? Oh, well, we got this authority 5 or 10 years ago. Who knows when? Perpetual war. This is what we are involved with. Perpetual spending. And then we say, well, we have to do that to be safe. That is what is preposterous. It is the very policy that makes us unsafe. We pursue this policy, and the more we do, the less safe we are. There is a big argument now about whether we are safer now with the new administration or is it making us less safe?
government
CURRENT CONDITIONS OR JUST A BAD DREAM
May 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It’s surreal; it’s just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.
government
CURRENT CONDITIONS OR JUST A BAD DREAM
May 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 56:2
We have broken from reality – a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act. This legislation forbids the Federal Government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any Federal program, or receipt of any Federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:2
While often marketed as a “moderate” compromise between nationalized health care and a free market solution, forcing every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled health care system.
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:3
If Congress requires individuals to purchase insurance, Congress must define what insurance policies satisfy the government mandate. Thus, Congress will decide what is and is not covered in the mandatory insurance policy. Does anyone seriously doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered will be determined by who has the most effective lobby. Or that Congress will be incapable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that will fit the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:4
The experience of States that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely create yet another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program to help cover the cost of insurance.
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:5
When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals and small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments will be reimbursed by the mandatory insurance. The result will be an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, thus making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find health care. Anyone who doubts that result should consider the increasing number of physicians who are withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
government
INTRODUCTION OF COERCION IS NOT HEALTH CARE
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 58:6
Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (H.R. 1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government-knows- best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
government
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:4
One of the major flaws with the federally mandated electronic record system is that it does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the Federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
government
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:5
Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government’s ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records.
government
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:7
A physician opt out is also necessary in order to allow physicians to escape from the inefficiencies and other problems that are sure to occur in the implementation and management of the Federal system. Contrary to the claims of the mandatory system’s proponents, it is highly unlikely an efficient system of mandatory electronic health records can be established by the Government.
government
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:8
Many health technology experts have warned of the problems that will accompany the system of mandatory electronic medical records. For example, David Kibbe, a top technology adviser to the American Academy of Family Physicians, warned President Obama in an open letter late last year that existing medical software is often poorly designed and does a poor job of exchanging information. Allowing physicians to opt out provides a safety device to ensure that physicians can avoid the problems that will inevitably accompany the government-mandated system.
government
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:9
Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government- mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op- out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients’ privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government polices that artificially inflate the price of gas. While the price of gas has not yet reached the record levels of last year, over the last 2 months the average price of gas has risen approximately 16 percent. In some areas, the price of gas is approaching $3.00 per gallon. There is thus a real possibility that the American people while soon by once again hard hit by skyrocketing gas prices.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:3
Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:4
Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and polices that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly though regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:5
Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline’s cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the Federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3.00 per gallon. During the suspension, the Federal Government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the Federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE AFFORDABLE GAS PRICE ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 60:8
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government polices that increase the cost of gasoline.
government
COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION
June 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 61:3
This resolution “calls on the People’s Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross . . .” Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the U.S. government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the U.S.-operated Guantanamo facility?
government
COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION
June 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 61:4
The resolution “calls on the legal authorities of People’s Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings.” In light of U.S. government’s extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such U.S. demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be “do as we say, not as we do.”
government
COMMEMORATING 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TIANANMEN SQUARE SUPPRESSION
June 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 61:5
While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that U.S. government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the U.S.-operated “secret prisons” overseas? What about the administration’s assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.
government
Resolution on Mental Health Month
June 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 62:2
In particular, the commission recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally- funded universal or mandatory mental- health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.
government
MISTAKES: JUST A FEW!
June 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 63:8
We deliberately liquidate debt, especially government debt, by debasing the currency. We refuse to accept the fact that the debt cannot be paid, and future obligations are incomprehensible with revenues crashing and unpredictable while expenditures are put on auto pilot with no new request being denied.
government
MISTAKES: JUST A FEW!
June 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 63:10
Plans are being laid for a super regulator, even if it takes a worldwide government organization like the IMF to impose it.
government
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:2
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
government
GLOBAL WARMING PETITION SIGNED BY 31,478 SCIENTISTS
June 4, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 64:16
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
government
INTRODUCING EVACUEES TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2009
June 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2009, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to December of 2007, so it is available to Hurricane Ike evacuees, as well as those who evacuated because of Hurricanes Gustav and Dolly.
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H. Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:2
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:4
Madam Speaker, I urge you to support H.R. 560, expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law and for other purposes. The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran’s polity, is to assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many and diverse minorities. It is not our position as the United States to determine the outcome of the recent Iranian elections, but as a leader in the international community, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people of Iran have the opportunity to have fair and free elections.
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:7
Yet despite the large-scale civil unrest in response to the rigged elections, the outstretched arm of the Ayatollah extends beyond Tehran. Whereas the size of the crowds protesting reached to more than 1 million people united in outrage at the absence of a fair and free electoral process. Despite the government ban that has been placed on all public gatherings with the purpose of voicing opposition to the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections, the people of Iran have publicly expressed their dissent. Iranians throughout the country have defied Interior Ministry warnings broadcast. Violence has spilled on to the streets of Tehran. To date, 7 Iranians have been killed in violent political unrest. Beyond Tehran, Iranians living in the rural regions are feeling the Ayatollah’s pressures to cease all public expression of their discontent with the outcome of the elections. The Iranian people living in the region of Mashad are currently confined to their homes in order to prevent them protesting in the streets. All foreign journalists have now been quarantined and/or made to leave the country.
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:9
Given the absence of fair and free elections, coupled with the government’s poor record for transparency and accountability, we have deep cause for concern about the opportunity for free choices and democratic participation for the people of Iran. Despite intensified inspections since 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) inability, to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is not designed to develop a nuclear weapon is cause for great concern. While Iran states that the intention of its nuclear program is for electricity generation which it feels is vital to its energy security, U.S. officials challenge this justification by stating that “Iran’s vast gas resources make a nuclear energy program unnecessary.”
government
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:10
Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepening relationships with the Iranian people will only help foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the United States and would enhance the stability the security of the Persian Gulf region. Furthering President Obama’s approach toward continued engagement will reduce the increased threat of the proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the means through which we resolve this looming crisis.
government
Statement at Financial Services Committee Hearing
July 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 82:1
The Federal Reserve in collaboration with the giant banks has created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen. The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us. Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
government
Statement at Financial Services Committee Hearing
July 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 82:2
Real unemployment is now 20% and there has not been any economic growth since the onset of the crisis in the year 2000, according to non-government statistics. Pyramiding debt and credit expansion, over the past 38 years, has come to an abrupt end – as predicted by free-market economists. Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction. Doubling the money supply didn’t work; quadrupling it won’t work either. The problem of debt must be addressed.
government
Statement at Financial Services Committee Hearing
July 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 82:3
Expanding debt when it was a principal cause of the crisis is foolhardy. Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither. Net US debt is now 372% of GDP. In the crisis of the 1930s it peaked at 301%. Household debt services requires 14% of the disposable income – an historic high. Between 2000 and 2007 credit debt expanded five times as fast as gross domestic product.
government
Statement at Financial Services Committee Hearing
July 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 82:4
With no restraint on spending, and revenues dropping due to the weak economy, raising taxes will be poison to the economy. Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile. Monetizing government debt, as the Fed is currently doing, is destined to do great harm. In the past 12 months the national debt has risen over $2.7 trillion. Future entitlement obligations are now reaching $100 trillion. US foreign indebtedness is $6 trillion. Foreign purchases of US securities in May were $7.4 billion, down from a monthly peak of $95 billion in 2006.
government
Statement at Financial Services Committee Hearing
July 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 82:5
The fact that the Fed had to buy $38.5 billion of government securities last week indicates that it will continue its complicity with Congress to monetize the rapidly expanding deficit. This policy is used to pay for the socialization of America and for the maintenance of an unwise American empire overseas, and to make up for the diminished appetite of foreigners for our debt.
government
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 86:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy and violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
government
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
government
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:7
The Freedom of Health Speech Act addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional constitutional standards, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC shifted the burden of proof to industry. The FTC presumes health advertising is false and compels private parties to prove the ads (and everything the regulators say the ads imply) to be true to a near conclusive degree. This violation of the First and Fifth Amendments is harming consumers’ by blocking innovation in the health foods and dietary supplement marketplace.
government
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:8
The Freedom of Health Speech Act requires that the government actually prove that speech is false before the FTC acts against the speaker. This is how it should be in a free society where information flows freely in order to foster the continuous improvement that benefits us all. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes before the FTC censors the claim and imposes other punishments.
government
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:3
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971, before Nixon’s re-election, said that the Fed has to do what the President wants it to do, or it would “lose its independence.” That about tells you everything. Not by accident, Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon’s program of wage and price controls, the same year; but I guess that’s not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks, politicizing monetary policy? Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest, and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?
government
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:4
He claims that H.R. 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. H.R. 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function, under 1207, would not change. The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different, and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?
government
H.R. 3269
July 31, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are justly outraged that Wall Street firms that came hat in hand to receive bailouts from the federal government rewarded their executives with lavish bonuses. But while holding those financial firms accountable to the taxpayers is a laudable aim, the legislation before us, H.R. 3269, goes far beyond this.
government
H.R. 3269
July 31, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 89:3
The Wall Street bailouts have already given the federal government too much power in corporate boardrooms, and H.R. 3269 is yet another step in the wrong direction. While shareholder votes on compensation may be non-binding now, once the precedent of government intervention on behalf of shareholders is set, there is no reason to believe that these votes will not become binding in the future.
government
H.R. 3269
July 31, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 89:4
Perhaps even more frustrating is that enforcement of the provisions of this bill will be undertaken by overpaid bureaucrats who lack the skills to earn comparable salaries in the marketplace by providing useful products or services desired by consumers. People who shuttle between federal regulator and federally regulated firms, trading on their political connections and epitomizing the corruption endemic to the government-managed financial system, will be making decisions that affect every single public company in this country.
government
H.R. 3269
July 31, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 89:5
In order to understand the reasons behind excessive executive compensation, we need to take a look at the root causes. The salaries and bonuses raising the most ire are those from the financial sector, the sector which directly benefits from the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. Loose monetary policy leads to speculative bubbles which drive up stock prices and enrich executives who cash in their stock options. It makes debt cheaper, which encourages reckless business expansion. And it shuttles money from industries that produce valuable products and services to industries that are favored by the federal government. H.R. 3269 is a well-intended but misguided piece of legislation. Until we strike at the root of the problem, we will never get our financial system back on a firm footing.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years. For every problem it has created, it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:3
Number two, if medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:4
Number three, economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policymakers into believing that quality care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:5
Number four, more dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality, but it always results in higher costs and prices.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:6
Number five, government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:7
Number six, first, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all of the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:15
Number 13, the cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:16
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
government
MORE GOVERNMENT WON’T HELP
September 23, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 90:20
True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.
government
NATIONAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY WEEK
November 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 95:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental- health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.
government
Afghanistan, Part 1
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 96:2
Of course, a lot of people in this country are asking, What should we do about Afghanistan? It’s a pretty important question. It might be one of the most important questions that we are asking right now. And yet nobody seems to have an answer. I think the difficulty in finding an answer comes sometimes from not having fully understood why we got there. I just can’t imagine this debate that’s going on within our government today, the executive branch, the legislative branch, and with the people – can you imagine this going on during World War II? How many troops should we have? What is our exit strategy? Who is our enemy? How are we going to impose democracy? It’s so far removed from what a traditional responsibility is of our government, which is to provide national security.
government
Afghanistan, Part 1
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 96:8
And then, of course, we continued and accelerated our support of the various puppet governments in the Middle East. In doing so, we actually went to the part of not only supporting the governments, but we started putting troops on their land. And when we had an air base in Saudi Arabia, that was rather offensive. If you understand the people over there, this is a violation of a deeply held religious view. It is considered their holy land; and foreigners, especially military foreigners, are seen as infidels. So if you’re looking for a fight or a problem, just put troops on their land.
government
Afghanistan, Part 2
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank you for yielding. I want to just make a couple of points in closing. The statement at the beginning of this war was made that it’s different this time. Even though the history is well known about Afghanistan – it’s ancient history, but it’s different this time because we’re different, and it’s not going to have the same result. But so far, you know, they haven’t caught Osama bin Laden, and we don’t have a national government, really. We don’t have really honest elections. We haven’t won the hearts and minds of the people. There is a lot of dissension, and it is a miserable place. It is really a total failure, let alone the cost, the cost of life and limb and money. I mean, it is just a total failure. The thought that we would pursue this and expand it and send more troops just blows my mind.
government
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal Reserve’s monetary inflation, indeed, does push the CPI upward, but concentrating on the government’s reports of the CPI and the PPI is nothing more than the distraction from the other harm done by the Federal Reserve’s effort at central economic planning through secret monetary policy operations. Real inflation, the expansion of our money supply, is greatly undercounted by these indices. In response to our latest financial crisis, the Federal Reserve turned on its printing press and literally doubled the monetary base. This staggering creation of dollars has yet to be reflected in many consumer prices, but will ultimately hit the middle class and poor with a cruel devaluation of their savings and real earnings.
government
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:5
In thinking about the dilemma that we have, I think back, even back in the 1960s when I was an Air Force flight surgeon for 5 years, and that was the first time I heard the term “quagmire.” And thinking about that for many, many years, that’s all I can think about right now is to evaluate what we have. There are a few phrases that have been around for a long time, and I believe they more or less describe what is happening here. Quagmire. Certainly that is what we are doing. We are digging a hole for ourselves. “Perpetual war for perpetual peace.” We have all heard that term, and it sounds like we are in perpetual war. “War is the health of the state.” We all know the government size and sacrifice of civil liberties always occurs much more so in the midst of a war.
government
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:7
Today it is said that we’re over there to protect our national security to go into Afghanistan. Well, it’s down to 100 al Qaedas in Afghanistan, and, quite frankly, the Afghan Government had nothing to do – they said they harbored the al Qaeda, and that is true, but do you think those 19 guys needed to do pushups in Afghanistan to come over here and do what they did? The real planning wasn’t in Afghanistan. It was in Spain. It was in Germany. Where was the real training? The real training was in Florida. The training was in Florida, and the FBI had evidence at the time that they were being trained, and it’s totally ignored. And yet we are concentrating, we are still back to 9/11, fear of nuclear war. We have to go in, scare the people.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:3
Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:4
At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the U.S. Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:5
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:7
Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the U.S. government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:10
The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:11
The sections of U.S. Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no U.S. Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:12
The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short- term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the Federal Government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other metals.
government
INTRODUCING THE FREE COMPETITION IN CURRENCY ACT
December 9, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 102:14
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. Government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.
government
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:3
In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, “Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.” Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.
government
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:5
Proponents of the president’s Afghanistan escalation cite the successful “surge” in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results. I fear they might be correct about the similar result, but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq. In fact, the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi’ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa – and all neighborhoods of Christians. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. We are increasingly seeing this “success” breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. Similarly, the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge.
government
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:9
Supporters of this surge argue that we must train an Afghan national army to take over and strengthen the rule and authority of Kabul. But experts have noted that the ranks of the Afghan national army are increasingly being filled by the Tajik minority at the expense of the Pashtun plurality. US diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned as Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, noted in his resignation letter that he “fail[s] to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.” Mr. Hoh went on to write that “[L]ike the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”
government
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:3
The sanctions are a use of force. This is just not modest. This is very serious. And the way this is written, it literally could end up with a blockade. It could be trying to punish our friends and cut off trade, and this cannot help us in any way. We would like to help the dissidents. We’d like to encourage them to overthrow their government. But hardly should we have our CIA, with U.S. funded programs, going in there with a policy of regime change. They know these kind of things happen. We’ve been involved in this business in Iran since 1953. And it doesn’t serve us well. It backfires on us, comes back to haunt us.
government
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:9
This will unify the dissent. This will unify the Iranian people against us. If we want to encourage true dissent and overthrow that government, which is more spontaneous and honest, I would say this is doing exactly the opposite.
government
Sanctions on Iran, Part 3
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 106:11
As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.
government
- Offices will provide service to all parts of district
20 December 1996 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 8 ... Cached
These district offices will be able to process all inquiries and problems, whether regarding issue positions, dealings with federal agencies, problems processing benefits claims, military academy applications, or any of the multitude of other issues in working with and through the federal government.
government
- Offices will provide service to all parts of district
20 December 1996 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 11 ... Cached
I and my staff are looking forward to working with each of you in your federal government. If at any time you have questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free to mail us at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC, 20515.
government
- Fiscal Responsibility: Balance the budget but don't raise taxes or cook the books
20 January 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
The amendment? One to require that all budgets of the United States government be balanced. On the face of it, balancing the budget is a laudable goal. In fact, a balanced budget with the elimination of our debt is one of the steps needed to ensure a sound, stable and growing economy for the 21st Century.
government
- Fiscal Responsibility: Balance the budget but don't raise taxes or cook the books
20 January 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
I am committed to doing everything possible to balance the budget and cut taxes. The truth of the matter is that we will only balance the budget when we address the level of spending which takes place at the federal level. The US budget is ripe with targets for cuts which would hurt no one (except, of course, those who get rich and powerful from the big government programs). If the politicians in both parties were serious about balancing the budget - without cooking the books or increasing our taxes - they could do so right now by making cuts in the unconstitutional programs they continue to fund year after year. The only way to get our fiscal house in order is for Congress to exercise its responsibility and begin making the relatively simple choices about which programs are necessary for running our constitutional government, and which simply have no business operating at the federal level.
government
- Fiscal Responsibility: Balance the budget but don't raise taxes or cook the books
20 January 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
When the roll is called for House votes on the Balanced Budget Amendment, you can expect "Paul of Texas" to vote "yes" if the measure is a responsible one: achieving the necessary goal of balancing the budget by cutting wasteful, big-government programs, not by using shady accounting techniques… or by taking more hard-earned money from our pockets and our children's future.
government
- Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake
20 February 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
So they started taking the money from the trust funds and replaced them with what are essentially "IOUs" from the government. Now, this is referred to as using the funds to "contribute" to the "retirement of the debt." That's a lot like the thief saying he was stealing my wife's belongings so she could "contribute" to his filthy habit.
government
- Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake
20 February 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Recently, with all the talk of a Balanced Budget Amendment, President Clinton has been edging toward a plan to take Social Security, and possibly other programs, "off-budget." He says he wants Social Security completely off-budget to protect the funds. A ridiculous claim! By allowing the president to off-budget Social Security or anything else, we will see those funds - and indeed our nation - quickly forced into insolvency as the money is used for more and more "non-trust" uses. It is simply unconscionable to allow the president, or a gang of big-spenders in Congress, to take items "off-budget" to artificially lower the publicized cost of government, or hide ill-advised financial fiascoes. And undoubtedly lead to more and more problems in the trust funds fulfilling their missions.
government
- Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake
20 February 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
Restoring the integrity of the trust system is of critical importance, especially if Congress passes a weak Balanced Budget Amendment. Billions of dollars are being diverted from their intended purposes (and a weak BBA could make it even worse). So when we hear that a local airport cannot get all the runways fixed this year, or when we're told a new highway project is still sitting on the drawing board, or we have to worry about whether senior citizens' Social Security checks will be secure, remember it is the federal government that is robbing our trust funds to pay for big-spending habits.
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
It is a very sad comment on the size of our government that we now tax and regulate (which is another form of taxation) so much that the average American now works through early July just to pay their levy. Stated a different way, the average worker spends more than half of every work day working for the government. That is unreasonable. For it means that you must work until shortly after lunch time before any money you earn actually goes to the well-being of yourself and your family.
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
Government has expanded far beyond the size outlined in our Constitution, and has taken on powers (which necessitate spending) without authorization. Until we address the role of government, until we can calmly address the question of "Should the federal government do the things it is now doing?", we will never be able to adequately address the issue of taxation.
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
Debates over how we collect taxes - whether by a "flat tax" or a national sales tax - are interesting, but often tend to cloud the real issue. The real debate should be over the question, "Why is government this big and spending this much money?"
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
The first piece of legislation is the Family Preservation Act. This legislation will repeal the Estate and Gift Taxes, which I refer to as "death taxes." These taxes are the most despicable, for the laws assume that after you have worked hard all your life, prepared for your family's future, that when you die the government has first claim to everything you own. Not only do they tax your productivity while you are alive, they tax your accumulated "after-tax" wealth once you have died, thereby punishing your spouse and children - it is as if the government owns your life, and has a fundamental right to all you have accomplished. The hardest people hit by these taxes are not the rich, but rather the middle-class Americans who own farms and ranches right here in the 14th District.
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
A second piece of legislation I will be supporting is the Capital Gains Reduction Act. Right now, the profit someone may make off of selling a house, trading stocks or other activities, is taxed at 28 percent or higher. This bill would cut that rate in half. Again, the people hurt most by the capital gains tax are not the wealthy, but the middle and low income families. When a parent has provided for their child's future by investing for college, it is immoral that the government should be able to step in and take almost a third. The taxes paid on those gains could have paid for an extra semester, or more.
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
As April 15 grows near, I hope that everyone looks very closely at how much money they pay to the government - either by a check written at midnight on April 14th, or taken quietly from their paycheck each week - and then consider this question: Could the money be better used by you than the ways in which the government will use it?
government
- The worst day of the year
20 March 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 16 ... Cached
It is my contention that you are smarter than all the politicians, especially where your life and money are concerned. Right now, the best thing government can do is cut your taxes, get out of the way, and applaud as you succeed in life and prepare for your family's future.
government
- Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
20 April 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
Imagine that you have taken a position contrary to the official dictates of the government in your nation. Instead of simply facing criticism from opposing political sides, you find your life turned upside-down; every aspect of your life is closely scrutinized. Without warning, your life savings are seized, your personal, private records divulged far and wide. Suddenly, how willing are you to continue holding your views?
government
- Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
20 April 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 26 ... Cached
Like so many of the problems we see in our nation today, the heavy political hand of the IRS being used against individuals is not ultimately traceable to the employees of the federal government, but to the elected officials who have allowed unconstitutional principles and practices to take hold in our country. It is only when we restore the integrity of the Constitution, and follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, that we will see these problems corrected.
government
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as "Most Favored Nations," or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs.
government
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese government. But it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing what is essentially a tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the American consumer who will pay higher prices on goods which come from China due to US policy. That means higher prices on many items, but not just items which come directly from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increases, people will be forced to find replacement products. As the demand for those products increase, so will those prices.
government
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 16 ... Cached
I have long held that governments do not solve problems, and government actions often creates more problems than existed previously. It's people who are able to bring about good change in this world, it's people who solve problems. China is indeed a problem: for us and its people. But it is a problem we can only resolve by changing the hearts of the Chinese leaders.
government
- The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription
20 June 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 18 ... Cached
By rushing quickly for the pills of government-enforced sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure China of her evil leadership. But unfortunately, those pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
An American statesman once said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. And thanks to the federal take-over of education, that's a thought which should scare us all.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
After all, the federal government has so invaded our classrooms, that daily our children are constantly bombarded with the message that everything good flows from the federal government, and that no one but the federal government has the ability to put right problems in our culture and world. On any given day, the federal government has more influence on the education of the average child than that child's parents.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
The scary thing is that this will only get worse as the federal government creates more funding schemes to convince cash-strapped local school districts to give in and implement the latest plans of the Washington-based education bureaucrats, the so-called "educrats."
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
As long as we accept the notion that the federal government has some sort of "right" to control education, we will never see this trend reversed. But the good news is, more and more people are awakening to the horrible things which have occurred since the federal government began taking over our schools. Recently, more than 54 percent of the people of the 14th District of Texas, responding to a survey my office conducted, said they wanted to see the federal Department of Education completely abolished. The people of the 14th District - and people from around the nation - are sick of programs like the president's "Goals 2000," which are more about social and political correctness than education; they are tired of seeing classrooms turned into vehicle for social engineering, instead of as a place for reading and math.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
There is absolutely no authority over education given to the federal government by the Constitution, none whatsoever. Everything we see the federal government doing in education is outside the bounds set by the Constitution; not, of course, that many people any longer feel bound by the restrictions set forth in the highest law of the land.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Even though many people across the nation are tired of what they see the federal government doing in education, there are too many entrenched congressmen, senators and federal employees who are unwilling to eliminate this unconstitutional waste of tax dollars. Therefore it is unlikely we see the Department of Education abolished, as it needs to be, any time soon, nor will we see the myriad of education-related federal rules and regulations discarded.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
I am confident that day will come, for history has shown us that big, centralized government systems always collapse. But until that days arrives we cannot sacrifice our children. In order to ensure our children and grandchildren are receiving the education they need, parents must be able to consider options for their kids other than, or in addition to, the government schools. But realistically, tutoring sessions, home schooling and private schools are options far out of reach for many people, simply because of the cost.
government
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents - consulting with teachers and local administrators - to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government.
government
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 2 ... Cached
Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
government
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Sadly, though, regardless of what the courts end up saying, the mere granting of this power has shaken our constitutional heritage of separated powers. The separation of powers in our nation is the hallmark of our form of government, and one attempt by the founders to safeguard individual liberty. The Constitution, and the arrangement of power in federal government, was designed deliberately and specifically and we must respect it, or risk jeopardizing the very foundations of our nation.
government
- Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government
18 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Congress acted improperly during the 104th Congress when giving this power to the presidency. Under the Constitution, it is Congress which has the responsibility to craft legislation, not this president, not a Republican president, not any president. Like the creation of administrative agencies, it is a means by which members of Congress have chosen to evade their responsibility as lawmakers and created scapegoats for the seemingly never-ending growth of liberty-oppressive government.
government
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Americorps is a program which should have never come into existence, it is simply an unconstitutional government expenditure. The Americorps program has absolutely no constitutional basis, no rational economic basis, and no pragmatic basis; it is simply another program aimed at making more people dependent on government largess, at the expense of the hard-working taxpayers.
government
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
However, the answer is not to increase the level of regulation or taxes on one or the other, but to instead lower the taxes and regulations on both. My legislation helps both ends of the industry by cutting government regulation and taxes on each type of institution.
government
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 17 ... Cached
The role of government is to protect life and liberty from initiations of force or fraud. By preventing government from drafting our children into a system of social engineering, and by reducing the unconstitutional barriers to financial freedom, these two pieces of legislation take a step in the direction our nation must head; the direction of individual liberty.
government
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
In the first place, there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to take money from the taxpayer and then transfer it overseas, and there is certainly no basis - constitutional or moral - for spending taxpayers' money in foreign countries to pay for the wholesale slaughter of children.
government
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
For example, included in this appropriation is $32 billion for the Department of Education, an increase of $4 billion over last year. We need to abolish the Department of Education, not increase it's budget. As the federal government has taken over education, we have seen academic achievement plummet and our schools become a mockery of scholarship. The Department of Education has been a favorite tool of those seeking a big-government agenda, and they are constantly working to tighten their grip on the minds of our children by forcing more and more programs on local schools, such as Goals 2000.
government
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
My basic opposition to these appropriations, though, has really little to do with how the money is being spent. It's almost useless to criticize how the federal government is spending the money, for that is not the real issue. For example, when we only criticize how the federal government spends money on education, we are tacitly agreeing to the philosophy of federalizing education. Instead, we need to focus on the fact that the federal government, under the enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, has no authority at all to be involved in education.
government
- Constitution must always be considered
01 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
The real issue we need to address is whether or not the federal government has the authority to do the things it does. Under our Constitution - the law of the land - it is very clearly stated what the federal government can and cannot do. So on these appropriation measures the question really isn't one of supporting or not supporting the multitude of ostensibly "good things" they entail. The issue is whether or not we are going to follow the law, the Constitution.
government
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress is back in session, having met last week and all this week, as well. For at least the next month Congress will be taking up the various appropriations measures, which are the individual pieces of legislation funding the various aspects of the federal government.
government
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
My amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act finally came to the House floor for debate and a vote last week. My amendment would have ended the federal government's use of our tax dollars to subsidize overseas abortions and "population control" programs, including related family planning services. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to take your money and spend it in such a manner, whether here or abroad.
government
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
I was pleased that 146 of my fellow congressmen voted for the constitutionally and morally correct position, but our side of the issue did not have enough to win. But I'm not discouraged because we were able to change the debate and make people think about whether they wanted to vote for morality, constitutional government and less spending, or for more big spending on unconstitutional programs. Maybe next time we will have more support.
government
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
This week the Congress will continue debate on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act. This is perhaps, next to foreign aid, one of the easiest appropriation to vote against this "budget season." This appropriation has absolutely no legitimate basis. None. It pumps more and more money into the tired liberal mantra of "national education standards" which have done exactly what the liberals wanted: standardized education. Unfortunately, it has standardized education down. Since the federal government and the advocates of anti-constitutional education programs began creeping into the scholastic picture, we have seen all measures of academic achievement drop.
government
- Congress to tackle Education budget this week
08 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
According to the Constitution - and common sense - education is not something for which the federal government should involve itself. Only parents know what's best for their child's educational needs, not federal bureaucrats. The teachers and school boards in the cities and towns of the 14th District know the standards appropriate for their students, not congress, the president and educational bureaucrats' unions. The way for the federal government to help improve education in our country, is to get out of the way. Those who advocate more federal involvement in education have failed our children, and failed miserably.
government
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
During debate last week an amendment was offered to prohibit the use of federal funds to perform abortions or offer various contraceptive devices to minors, if parents are not notified. The real debate on this point is not one of the rights of children versus the rights of parents, or even the question of whether federal money being spent this way -which constitutionality it obviously should not. The real debate is to what extent strings may be attached to federal funds. If the government is going to fund an unconstitutional program which should not exist anyway, then at the very least Congress should add sensible requirements for the sake of accountability. Doctors and nurses cannot even give out even an aspirin to a child without parental consent, mainly for fear of liability. And the government should do no less. If parents want their children to have ready access to birth control devices, then the parents should pay for it. But if the government is going to force us, the taxpayers, to subsidize these programs, then at the very least we should have a reasonable expectation that we - as taxpayers - are not going to be held accountable for any problems which may result from a child being given unlimited, uncontrolled access to various items paid for by the government. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect parents to assume liability for complications resulting from actions over which they are no allowed no control.
government
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
This past week also gave me the opportunity to testify about my education legislation, HR 1816. This bill gives parents the ability to take tax credits for up to $3,000 per year per child for education and education related expenses. This legislation has the benefit of imposing no cost to the taxpayers, and contains no federal "strings." It simply means people get to keep their own money, and spend it on the educational needs appropriate to their own child, rather than sending that money off to Washington bureaucrats and their failed, one-size-fits-all approach to government.
government
- Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it
22 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
In addition to passing the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, the Congress voted to pass the Treasury and Postal Operations Appropriations Act. This bill appropriated $1.3 billion more than the respective appropriation for the most recent fiscal year. In addition to funding the IRS at $7.6 billion, (that's an 8% increase over last year's funding), the bill also included 97 million dollars for the Treasury Department's "Violent Crime Reduction Programs" despite the fact that criminal law enforcement is a matter reserved to state and local governments by the ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say, this is a bill I opposed for constitutional reasons. Additionally, I want the IRS eliminated, not given more taxpayer money with which to further harass taxpayers.
government
- Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it
22 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
This week Congress will be considering several pieces of legislation, including HR 901, a measure I have co-sponsored. Entitled "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act," HR 901 takes a laudable step toward reaffirmation of the constitutional tenet that only Congress has the authority to make rules and regulations regarding federally-owned land, and not the powerful independent agencies. And now we even have to be concerned about the international government bodies like the UN.
government
- Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it
22 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
The federal government has no authority to erode United States sovereignty. According to the Constitution, all sovereignty, all authority, other than those delegated in the carefully delineated enumerated powers, remains vested with the people, not the federal government, and certainly not with the United Nations.
government
- Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
29 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
Last week Congress continued to consider the various appropriations bills to fund the agencies and departments of the federal government.
government
- Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
29 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
Also this past week there was an amendment to the State Department appropriation which would have cut $54 million from the payment to the United Nations, because the UN owes the US for non-reimbursed expenses. While the big government advocates won, the measure did receive 165 votes.
government
- 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.
government
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
In addition, the legislation prohibits federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting goods to citizens within countries whose governments either engage in or tolerate "religious persecution." There is great concern from many in the religious community that these kinds of restrictions would prohibit American missionaries from taking Bibles and humanitarian items into those named countries - the opposite of what needs to occur if we seriously want to see positive changes in the nations persecuting their citizens for religious reasons. Several issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant discussion and debate, including constitutional authority and the morality of rights "swapping."
government
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Religious persecution in any form is reprehensible, but especially when it takes on a violent face. It was for this reason our Founding Fathers insisted upon a Bill of Rights which prohibited our federal government from interfering with religious exercise by persons within the United States. The Constitution, however, does not provide the federal government the authority to police the world at taxpayer expense.
government
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Neither, of course, does the Constitution allow us to subsidize foreign governments through such taxpayer-supported entities as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, Ex-Im/USEX or any number of other vehicles through which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries (including those who engage in religious persecution). It is time we stopped both policing the world, and funding the totalitarian thugs of planet.
government
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Perhaps the most important flaw to this legislation is the basic presumption that the US government should be meddling in the affairs of other governments. Under our Constitution, we as individuals have the right, and I would argue even a moral obligation, to right wrongs in the world around us;, but our government, under the Constitution, has no such authority. What if England had had a law like this in place in 1993 during the Waco debacle? How would we as Americans have reacted when the British government banned all our goods from being sold in the United kingdom because of the actions of our federal government against a religious minority? We would have been outraged. Can we expect less from anyone else? I think we should be very careful about casting stones.
government
- US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution
06 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
It is ironic that the same federal government which killed innocent children at Waco for their parents "odd" religious beliefs, now proclaims itself ready to judge the world's nations on their religious tolerance.
government
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
This now-passed FDA bill requires that the US, through various international agreements, "harmonize regulation . . . and seek appropriate reciprocal arrangements" with foreign regulatory agencies. Opponents of this harmonization language correctly argue this "internationalizing" is very likely to limit the availability of food supplements by requiring prescriptions for dispensation as is the case in certain parts of Europe. Now remember, much of what the FDA does is already an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights, now this measure allows foreign governments to usurp the rights of American consumers.
government
- 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.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 5 ... Cached
Even an "FBI" style of federal agency, limited only to being a resource for investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the federal government's misdirected and misapplied war on drugs, the hysteria surrounding radical environmentalism, and the aggressive dictates of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the states. This buildup is the direct result of the sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local control by many Americans.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Force and intimidation are the preferred tools of tyrants, though not just intimidation with government guns. The threat of imprisonment and fear of harassment by government agents strikes terror into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit against the president, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for their 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current "year" for which the IRS is conducting audits of returns, the government claim that the action is unrelated to the suit is suspect, to say the least.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the federal government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970's both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment. Though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power, and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty.
government
- Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
20 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it's a shame our generation has ignored it
government
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
For a long time I have supported getting the federal government completely out of the education system. Not only is there no constitutional role for the federal government in our schools, but we have very clear evidence that the federal government has decimated and crippled our system of academics.
government
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
When I found out about this scam, I immediately took to the House floor to decry the measure and the process. When I finished speaking, another congressman, without blinking, proclaimed that this was "not a tax increase" but rather an increase in "government revenue." Calling a tax increase a method of increasing government revenue may be soothing to the politicians, but it does nothing to help the taxpayer who shoulder the burden no matter what it is called. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, a tax, by any other name, still costs the taxpayers their living.
government
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
But I'm not content to stop there. I want to give all Americans big tax relief by cutting taxes significantly and across-the-board. I signed a pledge this past week to vote to abolish the IRS and the income tax. Abolishing the IRS and income tax must be immediate priorities, and I am committed to slaying these two beasts. Our people and our economy need not only a much lower level of taxation, but a lower level of government spending. If we only abolish the income tax and do nothing to cut government spending, in the long run nothing will have been gained.
government
- By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax
27 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
While I pledge to vote to abolish the IRS and income tax at the first opportunity, I also pledge that at every step along the way, with every vote I cast, to cut government spending.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
When Congress convenes this week, two items are sure to get a lot of attention. One represents a further blow to our constitutional government, while the second is a token, symbolic wave at the IRS.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
Under "fast-track," the president still negotiates measures with foreign governments, then, if he has declared it necessary for trade, the agreement goes before the entire Congress, both the House and Senate. However, there are strict limits on debate -- and therefore opposition -- and there is no opportunity for Congress to make any changes. Further, this legislation forces the trade agreements to be placed as the highest priority on Congress’ schedule.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Fast-track is the process by which our nation was saddled with the harmful North American Free Trade Agreement. I favor the notion of removing trade barriers, and the quickening of the process by which these barriers can be eradicated. But free trade does not require massive NAFTA-like documents which impose extensive government regulatory burdens upon citizens of signatory countries. Free trade agreements should be far less complex, bilateral, and not require formation of international bodies for their enforcement.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
I think there are few issues more important than ridding our nation of the income tax and the IRS. The basic premise of the income tax is that government has first claim on everything we as individuals do, a complete contradiction to our national heritage. From that premise comes the IRS, which has been publicly unveiled as perhaps the most oppressive agency operating in our government today. The IRS can seize people’s homes, bank accounts and property, all under mere suspicion or wrong-doing, without proof. Using the complex intricacies of the tax code, the IRS can justify penalizing anyone, for anything, for it is almost impossible for anyone to be in complete and total compliance with the endless laws and bureaucratic rules.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
When I told him that most people work half the year just to pay taxes, he wasn’t even phased. He had seen what the politicians in Washington refuse to see: government is taking too much of our money.
government
- IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution
03 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Until Congress addresses the problem of how much money they are taking from us -- and therefore addressing how much money the federal government is spending -- any tinkering with the structure of the IRS, or adjustments to the way taxes are collected, are just window-dressing.
government
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 4 ... Cached
Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way.
government
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
I was pleased to introduce a piece of legislation several months ago which would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only 37 Republicans and three Democrats supported my measure. Apparently, the Congress just wasn't willing to take that big of a step in ending US support of the Communist reign of terror.
government
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
Of the numerous measures which came before the House of Representatives late in the week, perhaps the best was one discussed and voted upon Thursday night. While it was not as strong as the measure I introduced, by passing overwhelmingly, it signals a changing attitude in Congress. Simply, the measure calls on the United States' representatives on the World Bank and other international governmental bodies to begin voting against giving China loans and subsidies. At present, China receives more than $4 billion from those organizations, which are themselves financed heavily by the United States.
government
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about the conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to go in and point a gun at the Chinese leaders, and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way. I tend to believe that by Americans engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogues, and by seeking to change the hearts of the people of China, we will soon see that regime collapse. The laws of economics dictates that a communist system cannot stand for long. But in the same way, I firmly believe, there is a higher law which dictates that when people are exposed to the principles of liberty, they will not for long allow themselves to a shackled to an oppressive government.
government
- Communist China shouldn't be financed by US
10 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
So while the Constitution does not allow the federal government to send America's sons into battle over the living conditions in China, there is also no constitutional basis for sending our tax dollars over to support the very dictatorship we rightly despise.
government
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
This 25-year-old process is ingrained in the political process and will not soon disappear. The imperial presidency is alive and well as Congress continues the process of ceding power to the executive branch through such processes as the Line Item Veto, administrative law, the War Powers Act, executive orders and trade negotiations. As Congress - and especially the House - reneges on its responsibilities under the concept of separation of powers, the people suffer by loosing their most important conduit to the federal government.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 3 ... Cached
New budget is the biggest ever for federal government spending By US Representative Ron Paul
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
When I last served in Congress, more than 10 years ago, it was as a member of the Republican minority. Back then we spoke passionately about cutting taxes and ending the federal stranglehold on our schools, economy and property. When I was re-elected to the House in November 1996, I looked forward to serving in a House controlled by the party which has at least paid lip service to the important issues of cutting taxes and limiting the size of the federal government to those areas outlined by the Constitution.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Like many Americans, of course, I have been disappointed by politicians who can talk the tax-cutting talk, but who walk the big-government walk. Perhaps a little too optimistically, I hoped 1997 would be different. I actually looked forward to being able to report to the people of the 14th District that Congress has finally come around to doing what the American people have wanted for a long time: cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting the size of government.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
If it had stopped there, maybe it would not have been so bad. But at every turn, this Congress has voted, directly or indirectly, to increase taxes. Of course, it was often sold - if mentioned at all - as "revenue generation" for government, or, as "closing a loophole." But the bottom line is this: Americans are going to be paying more taxes this year than last year, to finance a bigger government with more unconstitutional programs.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Last week, the left-leaning Washington Post ran a front-page story headlined "Budget Pact's 1st Bottom Line: A Surge in Domestic Spending." The story details, in glowing terms, how this new budget is "the largest amount of overall government spending ever." Ever! And remember, this was the supposed "conservative" Republican budget. The spending items brought forward by the Republican leadership and approved by the House - over my objections - was more than what even the president had asked.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
But for as discouraging as 1997 was for those of us who seek to cut taxes, cut spending and cut the unconstitutional programs, there is still reason for some optimism. We should be optimistic because for the first time in many, many years, at least the rhetoric is on our side. Even the statists, those who love government intervention, are couching their big-government ideology in quasi-constitutional phraseology.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
While having a bunch of politicians talking about cutting taxes is not the same thing as actually having that money in your wallet, it is a sign that politicians are getting the message that the American public is tired of high taxes, big spending and intervention in matters outside the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction.
government
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 16 ... Cached
In this battle over federal priorities, those of us fighting on the side of constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets must not give up. The fact that the 1998 budget is bigger than any before it should spur us not into retreat, but more resolutely into action. Now is not the time for us raise our hands in surrender to the big-government advocates who mouth the rhetoric of our beliefs, but rather for us to speak more forcefully, work harder, for lower spending.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
But today, whether the problem is food for the poor, homes for the homeless, or medical care for the sick, our society endlessly calls upon government to redistribute resources contrary to the needs of the market and producers of prosperity. In fact, in government's rush to distribute welfare, there is a total disregard for the conditions required to produce the wealth. So as they rob resources to pay for these supposedly humanitarian concerns, the government "do-gooders" not only harm those who work and save for their own families, the government hurts all of society by violating the tenets of a moral, free nation; finally, it rubs salt in the wound by crippling the very system needed to produce more wealth.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
Further, in this misdirected humanitarianism, great harm is done to the very people who are supposed to be helped by the government welfare: the direct recipients, who become trapped in a perpetual degrading dependency, and the working poor, who bear the greatest burden of taxes and inflation. In a command society, the government continuously says, "do this," "do that," and we must obey -- "Or else," hangs the threat.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
We are endlessly compelled to be licensed for all that we do, so as to provide government more funding for our trouble. Rules and regulations are all around us, from morning to night, cradle to grave. Government taxes life, taxes death, taxes success and taxes savings. We suffer from double and triple taxation.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
We run into government regulations, rules and paperwork everywhere we go. We cannot walk, talk, pray, or own a gun without a government sanction and permit, payable at the check-out window. We cannot drive a car without bells and buzzers and horns and belts and bags, all serving as a reminder that Big Brother is watching, just waiting for one misstep. Meanwhile, the rapists and murderers go unpunished. We are intimidated by political correctness to the point that innocent humor is a crime, and the law is laughable.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Our businesses are subject to invasion at will by government bureaucracy without warning, to save us from ourselves, while destroying our freedoms. As the bureaucracy thrives, the command society expands.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
I see no evidence, sadly, of a reversal of this trend. We continue to tinker with the bureaucracy and talk of the benefits of block grants, yet we never are allowed to discuss in polite society the philosophic and moral principles which permit the command society to exist. In order for a command society to exist, individuals must concede to government the completely arbitrary use of force to mold personal behavior. For a command society to operate, the government's threat and use of force -- economic or physical -- is essential.
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
All decisions and systems of government have a distinct moral base. When we grant government the right to be charitable for us, we also grant government the right to force us to be charitable when we otherwise would not. And the use of force to compel an act of charity is, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "sinful and tyrannical."
government
- Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity
08 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
Without a change in our philosophic and moral approach to government, we will find that all the adjustments, tinkering, reinventing and revamping of the "command society" will not and cannot bring us freedom. It would be easy to fall into pessimism and think all hope is lost for the nation, but that is not the case. While the politicians in Washington, DC, have accepted the "command society" point of view, the people have not. As I travel the 14th District, I am encouraged that the people are not being fooled. And as the Washington politicians start to hear the voices of those calling for liberty, there will be changes!
government
- Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda
15 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an "environmental" treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command.
government
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
This kind of frivolous use of taxpayers' money is a sham. Under our Constitution, this fund should not exist in the first place, given the Article 1, Section 7, powers and restrictions on raising and spending money. Brought online by the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s, the fund was set-up to stabilize a volatile US dollar, not prop-up foreign currencies and markets. So even if this fund were constitutional - which it clearly is not - to use the money to cover the bad investments of Wall Street bankers and save the hides of Korean government officials is against the premise under which the fund was established.
government
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
This latest bail-out loan, however, is being given to the Korean government without so much as a cheap used car as collateral. If you or I tried going to the local bank and asked for a $1.7 billion loan without so much as presenting a trinket for collateral, we'd be laughed out the door.
government
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course, Mexico and South Korea do have something special which makes their case easier for the politically minded controllers of the taxpayer purse-strings. Both countries had a lot of American investors wanting to cash in on lucrative deals abroad with the possibility of big payoffs. Of course, as anyone who invests knows, the bigger the potential payoff, the bigger the risk. But many investors today are eager to embrace the philosophy of free-market economics when it comes to making money and keeping their profits, but at the first sign of those investments going sour, they want the government to socialize their losses at the expense of the taxpayers.
government
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
This bailout policy flies in the face of sound economics, of constitutional principles, and even old-fashioned common sense. But even worse, this policy immorally exposes the taxpayers to a tremendous risk. If Korea doesn't pay back the cash, then the only way for the government to make up the shortfall is to come knocking on your door again and reaching further into your pocket. After all, neither this president nor a majority of the Congress has any desire to cut spending to cover their improper uses of your money.
government
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
And while $1.7 billion may not seem like a lot to the quasi-socialist nations like Korea, it represents a significant amount of money to most Americans. By giving away almost $2 billion to a foreign government at a time when we face a continually growing national debt, proposals to cut benefits to senior citizens and veterans, and an tax rate of over 50 percent, it seems our national security and well-being is weakened by this maneuver, not mystically increased as the president would have us all believe.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
This Oath clearly that as a Member of Congress, I can only do those things outlined in the Constitution. And so I must "bear true allegiance" to the law of the land, and support only the special interest of constitutional government and individual liberty, not the failed ideologies of big-government, command economics and central control.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
But it is not enough - either by my Oath of Office before God, or my conscience as your employee - that I simply speak against those opposing our form government and values. Instead, I must work actively to introduce those values into the national debate and into the law books. As such, I will be spending a great deal of time arguing on behalf of passage for the legislation I have introduced.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
All too often the failed ideology of the past has been focused on taking power from people and giving it in ever growing portions to the government bureaucrats. I propose a different route, with legislation such as HR 1816, the Family Education Freedom Act. This measure would allow parents to take tax credits of up to $3,000 per child per year, so they can provide for their child's education, whether that be in a public, private, church or home school environment. The future of education is found not in some form of government control, but in parental empowerment. While I will be fighting to end the stranglehold the federal government has on our schools, I have brought forward this legislation to make sure parents have the chance to provide for their kids now.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government - including the President, the Congress and the courts - is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths - from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia - our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
In all, I am pleased to be sponsoring more than a dozen pieces of legislation, each designed to promote the interests of individual empowerment, constitutional government and much lower taxation. Further, I will be working hard for the more than 100 pieces of legislation I have cosponsored, all of which reflect the deeply-held morals, views and attitudes of the people of the 14th District, and our Founding Fathers.
government
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
With 1998 comes a fresh opportunity to work for the future, to work for a society which respects the principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic liberty. With this new year we have a new opportunity to usher in a future for ourselves and our children which is brighter than any previous generation has imagined.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Despite the sorrow, we must be cautious with how we proceed. Already there is grumbling of groups wanting the government to step in and regulate snow skiing, to prevent further tragedies. Those desires are fueled by the fact that this was the second celebrity death on skis in as many weeks, the first being the death of Michael Kennedy.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Accidents happen and cannot be foreseen. That is, perhaps, the single most true statement one can make. By the very definition of an accident, it is an unforeseen, undesired incident in an otherwise routine activity. It is incumbent upon us to take precautions against accidents, whether it is driving a motor vehicle, working around the house, riding a bicycle or skiing. But how does the government "outlaw" accidents, which is what some obviously propose Congress do when they ask for legislation to "stop" accidents from happening.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
In the emotion of the moment, people often say and do reckless things. For the individual, that can have deep ramifications. But when it is a single individual acting unreasonably in the throws of emotion in the face of sorrow, then the consequences are borne by only that person and his family. But when the government behaves recklessly in response to a tragedy, the consequences can be felt by everyone. This is especially true when politicians get in on the act.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
Benjamin Franklin once addressed this issue by saying that anyone who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As we grieve an accidental death, we must make sure that in our sorrow we do not create a larger tragedy by allowing government to improperly take on powers and responsibilities it should not have, or to unnecessarily expand those that it does.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
When the government does this great harm is inevitably done in the name of "protecting" people. The scariest words in modern lexicon are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Government cannot protect us from accidents any more than it can tax us into prosperity.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Our Constitution purposefully specifies the manner in which laws can take effect, to minimize the threat of rule by emotion of the moment. But then, our Constitution also specifically limits the powers the federal government, yet that has not stopped our federal leaders from passing laws which have no constitutional base.
government
Emotion should never dictate policy
12 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
As our nation grieves the loss of a man of considerable and varied talent, let us not rush to remember him in a way which discounts the rule of law, which dishonors the notions of individual responsibility, and which ignores our system of government. It's easy to look for a quick fix from government. But it is also very dangerous.
government
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
government
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
In fact, there is a move to have the federal government regulate vitamins and minerals, to the extent that it is possible an individual could be required to have a prescription before purchasing Vitamin C. Or, if the producers of bananas continue to state, correctly I believe, that that fruit is among the healthiest things we can eat, the federal government will begin to regulate bananas as drugs. Sound crazy? Yes, it is. Once again, it is a case of the people inside the Washington beltway assuming they know better how to care for us than we do ourselves.
government
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
We should not be surprised that the government would want to control this area which is so basic to our very lives. It is just one more example of government control. But unlike so many other areas where government regulation amounts to economic restrictions and time inconveniences, this growing trend can have serious and immediate repercussions in people's lives.
government
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.
government
Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises
26 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations.
government
Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base
02 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
A Kuwaiti professor was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, "The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies," thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States' continued military presence in the Middle East.
government
Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base
02 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
I, too, worry about a biological or nuclear threat. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our aggressive, hostile policies, than if we were friends with all, enjoying economic relationships and open dialogue. The way we usually get dragged into a war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm's way and the enemy took the bait. Once hostilities begin, debating the policy which created the mess is off limits; the thinking goes that everybody must support the troops by blindly and dumbly supporting irrational and irresponsible policies.
government
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
If we are to be a nation which follows the law, the federal government has absolutely no role in education. In fact, the federal government is completely excluded from having a role in education under our nation's highest law. Our Constitution clearly defines what the federal government can and cannot do, reserving all powers and authorities not specifically discussed in the document to the state and local governments, and to the people.
government
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Since the federal government began interfering in education, we have seen a dramatic decrease in our nation's level of academic excellence. Not because our teachers are worse, or because our students are dumber, but because the policies which affect the classroom make no sense. Our teachers have become mired in the muck of federal regulations which hamstring everyone involved in education. For example, in order to qualify for the taxpayer-funded lunch program for lower-income students, schools must accept a variety of rules and regulations. These rules have nothing to do with food preparation and everything to do with inflicting strange ideas and methods on our kids.
government
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
That the federal government would want to now implement a nationwide test is hardly surprising. Such testing would only complete the big-government advocates real agenda of striping all power and authority from the parents, local school boards and teachers. With everything riding on the performance on these tests, teachers would be required to instruct their students not in the areas most important to them and to their future, but rather teach "to the test."
government
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
There is no doubt that American schools are facing hard times. But the solutions to the problems are found not in Washington, but in the home and local schools. In fact, not only is Washington not part of the solution to our academic malaise, it is the root of the problem. While we averted adding to the problem in the near future, the best thing we can do in the long-run for our schools and our children is to follow the Constitution and get the federal government out of the equation.
government
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Sadly, the entrenched advocates of unconstitutional big-government have little reason to fear losing their power anytime soon: the attitude in Washington, DC, is still firmly against local control and parental power, regardless of the rhetoric.
government
US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq
16 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
It is a sad indictment of our government that it takes legislation is required to force the President and the Congress to follow the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, especially when dealing with issues of life and death for our troops and our people.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Four offices with full-time staffs working ten hour-days is all the proof I need that Americans have far too much federal government on their backs.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Our Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew how often Americans have to deal with the various bureaus and agencies of the government based in the federal city. In fact, when they framed our national government, there were no such things as agencies or bureaus, and certainly no plans for legions of bureaucrats who spread out and harass the people for such things as whether they have the lid on their typewriter correction fluid screwed on tightly, or they are growing too much or too little of a particular crop, or making sure they are teaching kids about sex in kindergarten. It was simply unimaginable to the people who founded our nation that we would inherit a land as regulated and as taxed as the one we face in these closing days of this century.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
But the fact that as a representative I have to maintain four offices - at the expense of the taxpayers - to handle nothing but helping constituents deal with the federal government is proof that the unimaginable is reality.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
Whether its OSHA agents banging on the counters of small business owners, or EPA enforcers inspecting the dirt of the farmer, or the IRS threatening single mothers and retired veterans, the American people have constant contact with federal agencies. There are some in our nation who like the current arrangement, and even believe the federal government should take on even bigger roles in our lives and business. Often the excuse for these ever expanding roles for the federal government is that we need to help people, or that some wrong can be put right only by some collectivist activity.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The American people need and want, they demand, less government, not more. The American people want fewer bureaucrats breathing down their necks, not more. The American people want to keep more of what they earn, not less. The American people want the federal government to get out of their wallets, off their land, out of their schools, and out of the way. As I travel the district I hear people telling me they are tired of the imperious attitude of politicians who dare to say they are coming in to "partner" with farmers and small businessmen through new programs, bigger agencies and, of course, more taxes. But when politicians and federal bureaucrats talk about "partnering," it becomes a one-sided relationship with the government calling the shots and taking the rewards, while the farmer and small businessman get stuck with the work and the costs.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Daily my offices in the district are flooded with calls from people who have reached their wit's end in dealing with the vast myriad of agencies and bureaucrats, running in to the brick walls erected by the advocates of government intervention. To date the staff has been very successful. I think of the gentleman in the southern part of the district who recently attended a town hall meeting and told me how the IRS had been hounding his family for years over perceived mistakes. He had reached the end of his rope when he came to our attention, but my staff - using the bully position of the congressional office - was able to fight the red tape and the bureaucrats. His voice was strained as he told me that without my staff's intervention, he and his wife "would have been kicked out of our house and living under a bridge." His story is too commonplace for this statement to have been an emotional exaggeration. Daily we see similar situations with people of all backgrounds from all over the district.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But there are those who either refuse to acknowledge the suffering brought on by the failed ideology of government intervention, or they think it is justifiable. And they want more of it. Just this past year, in the midst of the major hearings on abuses by the Internal Revenue Service, that Gestapo of American life, Congress sneaked in over $700 million dollar budget increase for the IRS. I caught wind of the increase and voted against it. We need less of the IRS, much less.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Of course, those whose political ideology supports massive government will try to use the vote against me. And that is as it should be: the last thing I want is to make big government advocates happy.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The people of the 14th District of Texas, indeed the people of the United States, are tired of people harassed by federal agents who are enforcing unconstitutional regulations promulgated by an unfair tax burden. I'm proud to be fighting the foes of constitutional government and liberty. But I'm even more pleased that so many people are part of the fight. History has shown that big governments collapse under their own weight, and that those who favor government intervention scurry to insignificance in the light of liberty.
government
Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district
23 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
The federal government is far too big, and as I fight it on the ideological level in Washington, my staff and I are willing and eager to join you in fighting it on the ground.
government
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
I recently asked to come before the House Oversight Committee to discuss campaign finance reform as part of a panel. Congressman after congressman presented their ideas to restrict the American people and limit participation in the political process. They offered proposals requiring that the American taxpayer bear the burden of funding the campaigns of all federal candidates (of course, not all candidates would be federally funded, it was quickly added, only those who are deemed "viable" by the government).
government
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
The problem, according to these congressmen, is the big-money interests trying to influence the outcomes of elections. But none wanted to address the root of the problem, of why groups are willing to spend so much money trying to affect an election. Groups do so because of the overwhelming power the federal government has over every aspect of life.
government
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The only meritorious reform is legislation to strike down barriers which serve to quash opposition to the big-government political factions. For this reason, under authority of Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution relating to the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding federal elections, I have introduced HR 2477, the Voter Freedom Act, and HR 2478, the Debate Freedom Act. Rather than trampling individual rights, these bills actually enhance fundamental liberties and expand the exchange of ideas. These bills embrace, rather than disgrace, the First Amendment.
government
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
That 90 million Americans of voting age refused to vote in the 1996 election indicates that a high number of Americans have little faith in the federal government, or at least the ability of either party to represent them. Over 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as neither Democrats or Republicans, and they demand their views be represented. It is unconscionable to continue to exclude from debates candidates who represent the views of 40% of the people, especially as the current system of financing forces taxpayers to subsidize presidential candidates with whom they disagree.
government
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
As this issue remains in the forefront, there will be the opportunity to make major changes. The changes we make will affect the electoral process, which will affect the government which taxes and regulates so much in our nation. If we choose poorly, people will become more disinterested and the special interests will gain even more power. But if we choose wisely, we will present to the future a system more democratic and responsive to the notions of liberty so cherished by the American people.
government
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
And of course, strings will always be attached, no matter how many safeguards are written into the block-grant law. The process of devolution is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic question of whether or not the federal government - or even the state governments, for that matter - ought to be involved in providing housing.
government
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If funding for the obscene, wasteful and wholly-unconstitutional NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government could we expect to be?
government
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The devolution approach is not the first choice of proponents of big government, but it is acceptable to them. Why? The calls for more spending are usually satisfied as the supposed advocates for smaller government agree to more money so as to get the symbolic block grants passed into law. In the end, all the politicians, in spite of the rhetoric, are content, because they can sing both sing pleasant tunes to their special-interests. But the taxpayer loses because the money is still taken, at ever increasing rates, from their wallets.
government
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education and human resources reform, Congress gave the federal government massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once was understood as States rights.
government
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State. Time is against the advocates of big-government, but unfortunately, in the meantime it is also against the wallets and well-being of the taxpayers.
government
US should stop meddling in foreign wars
16 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova "without question a terrorist group." So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists? Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, `All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.' What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.
government
US should stop meddling in foreign wars
16 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
government
Security of the people's liberty at risk
23 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
Sadly, though, our representatives and senators, and our presidents, seem intent on following something other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism, behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing the "will of the people." But the rule of law is about doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob - even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind it - might desire at the moment.
government
Security of the people's liberty at risk
23 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The Constitution is very clear on this and every other subject. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, defines what the federal government, and the three branches of the federal government, can and cannot do. Everything else, according to the law, the Constitution, is "reserved" to the states and the people.
government
Congressional action weakens national defense
06 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
While I am not overly excited about the federal government dictating the priorities of airport construction and modernization, at least it is tax money being spent here, to the benefit of the taxpayers, rather than elsewhere in the world with our troops being exposed to risk..
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk has slowly shifted from the individual to the nanny-state. And the tobacco industry has been a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility, in the name of getting taxpayer subsidies. The reality is that big tobacco put the welcome mat out for big government, and now they are having to face the music.
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Fundamentally, though, the question is this: who has responsibility for our well-being? Who should make decisions regarding risk-taking and personal habits, the Government or the individual?
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
During the Clinton health care debate, tobacco and nearly every other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was government's responsibility to provide care for everyone; which means, of course, that it is the obligation of the government to force one person to pay for the treatment of the bad habits of another.
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to reflect the cost of habits like smoking, sky diving, overeating, and medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance goes out the window and everybody gets everything paid for, regardless of their behavior. This, of course, explains why people in socialized nations, like England, continue to smoke in increasing numbers. Socializing the cost of the consequences increases participation in risky behavior.
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
It is this abdication of personal responsibility that drives contradictory drug laws; we say a particular drug is illegal, which inspires the use of dirty needles, and then serves to further the spread AIDS and hepatitis. In the name of compassion, the government then forces non-users to pay for free needles so the addicts can keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre.
government
Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility
13 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
The proposed tobacco deal does great harm because it further undermines the principle of individual responsibility. Undermining this principle not only drives up the costs of medical treatment and the products involved, it actually encourages dangerous behavior. After all, the typical response to future generations will be, `If I'm unfortunate and become ill or injured engaging in a particular activity, the seller or the Government will be made to take care of me.'
government
Giving power to parents is truly pro-education
20 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Of course, everyone now uses the token rhetoric of "local control." However, when one examines the specifics of the plans being proposed - if such specifics are available - one has to wonder if the politicians think "local" refers to either Capitol Hill, or, at best, mandates coming down from the federal government to be implemented locally.
government
Giving power to parents is truly pro-education
20 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But even when we see education programs working well, the federal government still manages to find ways to endanger them. A prime example is agricultural education programs, such as those run through the 4-H and Future Farmers of America. When a young person enters those programs, wanting to gain hands-on experience and education in raising livestock, a part of that process involves "shows" and auctions. The proceeds from such shows and auctions are the money the kids use to participate in Ag programs the following years, or provide money for college.
government
Giving power to parents is truly pro-education
20 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Does the federal government stand back and applaud these young people bettering themselves academically, learning a skill and preparing for the future? No, Uncle Sam steps in and taxes the cash, meaning the kids lose precious money for school (making them more dependent on government aid) or the ability to participate in such programs the next year.
government
Giving power to parents is truly pro-education
20 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
The more we can do to free people from the chains of government programs and mandates, and allow them to provide for themselves, the better off our society will be. But more importantly, as we free the resources of parents to provide for their children - and allow children to participate in programs that prepare them for adulthood - the higher we will see academic achievement reach.
government
Giving power to parents is truly pro-education
20 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Beware the government program labeled "pro-education." The only truly pro-education approach is to get the federal government out of education, and allow parents to provide for their own children.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 1 ... Cached
No such thing as a free (government) needle
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
After all, the advocates of government-funded "needle exchange" programs say, the pennies each needle costs to distribute to drug users is small change relative to the costs of health care for those druggies who become infected with AIDS, hepatitis, or any other communicable disease.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
The argument for needle distribution is, of course, a very caring and pragmatic one. The proponents of needle distribution programs point - correctly - to the fact that using a clean needle will prevent the transfer of contagious disease and, therefore, the future health care costs to government will be reduced.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Those making the relative cost argument in favor of these programs assume that the taxpayer has some obligation to pay one or both rather than neither. Unfortunately, this will be the focus of the debate. It is much easier politically to lambaste the "drug user" as opposed to the federal health care beneficiary, despite the fact that if one accepts the premise that the federal government has a duty to provide health care, the provision of needles is the fiscally logical choice.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Implicit in this assumption is the notion that the government should compel you, the non-user, to pay for the habit as well as the consequences of drug use. And while I would not stop you from using your own private funds to provide sterile needles to those in your community, it would be immoral for the government to use government force to compel someone to pay for this program.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
This is the socialist's dream. As government assumes the responsibility of paying the costs associated with irresponsible behavior, the more legitimately government can justify its involvement in dictating the behavior. As economist Ludwig von Mises argued, intervention begets more intervention. The only choice is individualism or collectivism because some collectivism always leads to more collectivism, and eventually pure collectivism.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
It is unrealistic to expect those who favor government (read "taxpayers") footing the bill for medical costs not to expect the government to then regulate everything a person does which might affect their health. Case in point, the tobacco settlement, and even the helmet and seat-belt laws.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
There is a final argument against the distribution of needles at taxpayer expense, and it is an argument which goes more towards the consistency of the entire situation as it relates to the Constitution. Under our current laws, use and possession of particular substances is illegal. Yet needle exchanges would provide services to assist people in breaking the law. This is ridiculous. Our government has become so big, and has stepped so completely outside the limited, enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, that contradictions such as these are the practical result.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
When we allow the federal government to do things it is not constitutionally authorized to do, when we endorse the concept of federal intervention in what is constitutionally state and local matters, we are bound to see government tripping over itself to use its over-reaching powers in ways to satisfy everyone. Again, case in point, the subsidization of both tobacco interests and cancer research.
government
No such thing as a free (government) needle
27 April 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
We must be extremely wary when people advocate the use of governmental force in the name of "free" provision for some. It always costs the taxpayers in the end. We should be even more cautious when the government proposes a way to "help" others, because, invariably, the help not only subsidizes negative behavior or results, but, at the same time, becomes the justification for more intervention.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
For some, the issue is merely "how do we collect the taxes?" and proceed to debate the merits of a flat tax, a sales tax, a modified graduated tax, and on. But rarely is the real issue discussed by the Washington-insider policy-makers. The real issue is this: Why does government need so much of our money?
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
The answer is not complex; government wants money because it wants power; politicians want your money so they can make decisions that benefit them politically and force you to do what they want, being molded into their images. And so government grows. And grows. As they take more of our money, the more we are forced to rely on them, and the more money they "need" to "provide." It's a hideous cycle.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Despite what they regard as an inconvenience of the Constitution, the federal government continues to usurp more and more power and privileges which are more correctly left to the individual and the states.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Make no doubts about it, the income tax is horrible, aggressive and must go. At the same time, we must end the appetite the government has for the fruits of your labor. To this end I have introduced House Joint Resolution 116, an amendment to the Constitution, called the Liberty Amendment. The Liberty Amendment has a long history, dating back almost 40 years, with more than a dozen supporters in Congress of its various forms, including several current members.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
But the Liberty Amendment would do more. It would also prohibit the federal government from taxing estates and gifts, and at the same time require that the federal government withdraw itself, within three years of enactment, from all activities not specified as an enumerated power of the federal government.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
It is true that liberty is not free, nor is it easy. But tyranny - even varying degrees of it - is much more difficult, and much more expensive. The time has come to rein in the federal government, put it on a crash diet, and let the people keep their money and their liberty.
government
Liberty must be our goal
04 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
Perhaps we will celebrate freedom from federal tax day in January, and "Cost of Government" day in February. It may not happen soon, but we must have a goal.
government
Is it freedom from religious persecution?
11 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Religious persecution is a reprehensible form of force when committed by anyone. However reprehensible, though, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to police the world at taxpayer expense. The Constitution's framers argued for friendly commercial dealings with all nations and entangling alliances with none. Today, the opposite seems to be the order of the day. Of course, "friendly commercial dealings" was never intended to include the subsidization of foreign governments - including those engaged in zealous religious persecution - at taxpayer-expense.
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
The federal government was designed to be limited in power. In fact, there is a strict enumeration of the spheres in which Congress is allowed to act. For every other issue, only the state governments or the people, in their private market actions, enjoy constitutionally protected right to those powers. The tenth amendment is brutally clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
But rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress recently passed two pieces of legislation - neither containing a shred of constitutional authority - which, of course, were "non-controversial" despite moving us further from the notion of a limited government. One piece of legislation pledged that the Congress will "pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence." Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably with alcohol in the 1920s, the threshold question must be: "under what authority do we act?" Whether any governmental entity should be protecting individuals from themselves and their own stupidity is certainly debatable; whether the federal government is constitutionally empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one's sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
The second legislative fiasco was the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill expands federal criminal law by imposing more sanctions on those who fail to meet child support obligations imposed by individual states. Further, the bills shifts some burden of proof from the federal government to the accused, a radical departure from the American notion of "innocent until proven guilty." Even worse, this legislation seems to reintroduce the notion of federal "debtor prisons," a vestige of the past best left in the past.
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The argument is that states are less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with individuals who flee one state for another to avoid prosecution. The Constitution preserves the integrity of states, and provides the means for them to exact penalties from those who violate their laws, and the Constitution provides for the return of fugitives from one state to another. There is, of course, an inconvenience imposed upon states in working with one another, rather than relying on a national police force. But there is a greater cost to individual liberty from a centralized police power.
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
There is a simple, sound reason to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions -- it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the liberty of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
government
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet, moving to a "competing" jurisdiction. If, for example, one state has a high income tax which the residents feel is inappropriate, they can move to Texas (as many have done) to keep more of their earnings. But as government becomes more centralized, it becomes more difficult to vote with one's feet. There must be ample opportunity for citizen mobility: to proper governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
government
Asian economic crisis result of suppressed liberty
25 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. It should be no surprise to see blood in the streets of Jakarta. But instead of these circumstances leading to freedom, many are inviting marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability--with all the dangers that go with increased restrictions on liberty. Sadly, errors in economic thinking often prompts demands for more government programs to `take care' of the rapidly growing number of poor.
government
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Those who supported the amendment correctly argue that the rapidly growing government has tried to replace the church, and actually encourages discrimination and hostility against people of faith. An argument which I believe to be absolutely true. However, the proper solution should be to shrink the size of the federal government -- not further enlarge the federal government or impose upon states rules by which they must manage their school districts and property.
government
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the final version of the so-called Religious Freedom Amendment further enabled the federal government to do more mischief by expanding their powers.
government
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The proposed amendment encouraged a government solution to the problem by allowing the federal government and federal courts to instruct states and local school districts on the use of their property -- in direct contrast to the original intent of Constitutional framers to protect against a strong central government and in support of state and local government.
government
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Further, and perhaps worst of all, the amendment would have forbade state and local governments from denying benefits to religious organizations. This would have had the chilling effect of forcing people to subsidize almost any bizarre practice or ritual B or at least the advancement of that activity -- which its practitioners could claim to be part of a religious exercise. Thomas Jefferson once said that to "compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
government
Religious freedom found in following Constitution
08 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, our existing First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression will be protected more strongly than any effort at federal meddling.
government
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Echoing through the halls of the House of Representatives right now is perhaps one of the most important debates of the decades. So important because it goes to the heart of the First Amendment and, indeed, our very form of government.
government
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the legislation being considered takes exactly the wrong course of action. Many of the politicians assume that restricting the right of people to be involved in the political process can cure what is wrong with the system. Limiting freedom, however, is not the answer, for the problem is not that we have too much freedom, but that government has too much power.
government
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
The real origin of the campaign finance problem is the expanded role of the federal government. The simple truth is that people are willing to spend a lot of money to influence the outcome of elections because the federal government has so much power. With that in mind, it is obvious that the proper solution to the issue is to greatly reduce the role of government. By drastically reducing the power lawmakers maintain over virtually every aspect of citizen's lives, the influence enjoyed by campaign contributors, lobbyists and political action committees would quickly dissipate.
government
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
He is entirely correct. If we cut off contact with people in oppressive regimes, two things happen. First, they are not exposed to different ideas and beliefs, leaving only the nonsense being touted by their government. And second, it allows a carte blanche power for the oppressive government to blame any problems in his country (real or imagined) on Americans, rather than his own failed programs and ideology.
government
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
And that is a position supported by many in the Christian community as well. Father Paul Sirico, a Catholic priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that sanctions hurt only the people we are trying to help, not the leaders of evil governments.
government
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
And there is another dynamic in place as we look toward engagement rather than isolation, and that is the issue of aid. For years the American taxpayer has been forced to subsidize hundreds of governments around the world, including those of some of the most vicious dictators in history, in the name of either "promoting human rights" in that country, or in the interest of "national security." Often times, tax dollars are being used to prop up these dictators, while at the same time trade sanctions prevent US farmers and small businessmen from selling their products in that market.
government
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
So while the farmer or small businessman is losing money by being forbidden to enter a potentially lucrative market, he is being taxed at higher rates to pay for subsidies to those same foreign governments.
government
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
It is appropriate that this week be not only the observation of the Declaration of Independence, but also the time of year we as individuals - on average - become free of the cost of government.
government
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
For more than half of the year the average American toils not for his family, for his needs, or for his future. No, for the first six months of the year, the average American works to pay the cost of federal, state and local taxes and regulations. Imagine that, between January 1 and sometime around July 4, we were working to pay for government, not feed our kids, pay the rent or save for retirement. We were paying for government.
government
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
We are not slaves, but many feel as if they are indentured servants to government. And by and large it has happened with our willing consent. We have allowed ourselves to compromise sacred liberty for temporary promises of security or false prosperity.
government
After 222 years liberty must still be our goal
29 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
But it does not have to be so. We can reclaim our heritage of freedom, not with a gun but with our voice. We can reject the creep of statism, and encourage the blessings of liberty for our land. It will require work, and it will require commitment, and it will require a willingness to stand firm for our beliefs, refusing to compromise with those who would continue to push for more taxes, more spending and more government solutions.
government
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse.
government
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Our respect for private property goes to the root of our other freedoms: freedom of speech, of religion, to own weapons, to gather peaceably, and on. Much is made that one should not "yell fire in a crowded theater." And while that is true in a moral sense, it is equally true that the property owner should have the right to disallow people from saying or doing anything in their theater, or even being there in the first place. But today the government dictates not only how we can use the land, but in many cases forces us to allow others to use our property in ways to which we object.
government
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly "environmental" in nature, others reflect a desire for "fairness," while still others make claims of simply being "good for everyone." While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
government
Respect for property rights necessary for freedom
06 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Perhaps the most egregious assault occurs, though, at the death of a property owner. Instead of being able to leave the family estate to his heirs, the owner's survivors must instead sit down with the government and negotiate how to divide up the property. The family farm is an endangered species, not for a lack of profitability or interest, but because the taxes assessed by government at our death forces the family to sell off land just to pay the levy.
government
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Such is the case with an obscure section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This section authorizes the federal Department of Transportation to establish national requirements for birth certificates and drivers' licenses. The provision, a small part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents an unprecedented power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would essentially transform state drivers' licenses into national ID cards.
government
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
This situation is decidedly un-American, contrary to our heritage of individual liberty and states' rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction, such as opening a bank account, seeking employment, or especially seeing a doctor.
government
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
The establishment of a "national" drivers' license and birth certificate makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is "forced" to accept the federal standards, is it unlikely they will refuse to comply when such action would mean none of their residents could get a job, receive Social Security, leave the state by plane, or have access to medical care. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.
government
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
It is for this reason that I am introducing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, with Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia as a cosponsor. As the law stands now, the government is in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.
government
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
What would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to future generations would have grown to such a size that it claims power to demand all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID before getting a job? They would no doubt be disappointed.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
In recent years, though, the Social Security Number has become just that, and unless the use of the number is restored to its original purpose, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
While I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which would stop a national identification card from taking effect, we need to be aware that those wanting to give government power to track us from cradle to grave already have the Social Security Number as their tool of choice. It is for this reason that several months ago I introduced the Privacy Protection Act, H.R. 3261.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only look back to 1996. In that year, two major pieces of legislation passed leading this nation down the path toward the National ID. The first was the welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national database. The second was the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which required that the Department of Transportation implement "standards" for state drivers' licenses that must be followed or the citizens be punished.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
This is not an isolated incident; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. In many states - thanks to federal law - one cannot get a driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just a couple months ago weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America's citizens.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act to stop a national ID system from taking place, but we should not be fooled into thinking that the coming National ID is the only threat to our privacy. For America already has a de facto national identification number in the Social Security Number, which comes close to providing the federal government with the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave.
government
Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained
20 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would one day have the ability to create a national ID system and demand that every newborn baby be assigned a number by the federal government. One wonders if the Founders would have fought for liberty if they knew how that precious right would be eroded by their political descendants.
government
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Unfortunately, this is not the case in the United States, thanks to the federal government. Under federal law, Congress has prevented employees from finding a job on their own, and then holding the job by their own merit. Instead, federal law has allowed labor unions to step in and dictate to both employers and employees everything including who can be hired, the terms of the contracts, the availability of promotions, and even the conditions that someone can be fired.
government
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Unions can serve a beneficial service to employees and even employers. But never should unions have the benefit of the government force giving them power; that is intolerable.
government
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
After all, no single organization can be expected to "speak" for everyone. This is why there is so much controversy over the political spending of the unions. The union leadership, for many years, has grown "out of step" with many of its members. Yet thanks to the government, members have no choice but to continue paying dues, which are then used to promote causes they oppose.
government
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
But at every stage the agreements should be voluntary. Employees should be free to join or not join, and employers should be free to bargain with the unions, or not. The free market will sort out the details. The free and open market, not the heavy, restrictive hand of the government, will determine the best employment atmosphere, allowing for maximum freedom for the employees and the employers.
government
Right to work must be free of coercion
27 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Americans must have a right to work -and hire - as best suits their needs. A government bureaucrat cannot mandate the conditions, and no single organization can do everything. As always, the principle of liberty and freedom will provide the maximum number of opportunities and options.
government
Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous
03 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 2 ... Cached
Debate must instead focus on limited government and liberty
government
Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous
03 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Our system of elections will not dramatically change until our politicians attitude towards government is changed. As long as government has so much power over so much over lives, there will be people wanting to buy influence and create ways to keep others from doing the same. If our federal government did only those things authorized by the Constitution, there would be very little incentive for powerful "special interests" to try to influence congressmen.
government
Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous
03 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
While it is easy for the politicians in Washington to try and blame our problems on too much freedom, the real problem is that our government has drifted from protecting liberty to managing a nanny state. Increasing the size of government and its influence over elections cannot help; defending and enhancing personal liberty can.
government
MSAs best option for better health care
10 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
With health-care costs rising at ever-increasing rates, many of us feel we have no choice but to surrender to "the system." The costs are rising for many reasons, most notably, of course, is government meddling in medicine in the first place, followed closely by frivolous lawsuits.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
Congressional leaders are squabbling like never before; not over how to cut spending, reduce government and balance the budget, but over how to spend the so-called $1 trillion budget surplus expected over the next ten years.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
It is true many Americans believe this nonsense and feel giddy about the prospects of sharing in a perpetual wealth machine. Of course, not much good can be expected to come from such accounting chicanery, but the debate is not all bad. Tax cuts are being considered as a way of "spending" some of the money coming in from - what else! - excessive tax revenues. But the myth prevails that allowing an individual to keep their earnings is recorded as a cost to government, and that is a concept which must be rejected.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
The debate over how to manage all this extra cash never includes any discussion about reducing the size and scope of government; while plenty of energy is spent on promoting new welfare and warfare spending.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
It does not go unnoticed by people outside the Washington, DC, that the cost of living continues to rise despite the government's rosey reports. Personal bankruptcies are at a record high level, and the 18% interest on consumer debt is a lot different from interest earned on savings accounts.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
First, we're not doing as well as claimed and most Americans know it. Second, we're doing well because we benefit, as all countries do for a limited periods of time, from central bank credit creation - i.e., free money flowing into the banking system keeping interest rates artificially low. A $5.6 trillion debt and growing allows government expenditures to continue despite the nonsense about a balanced budget all the Washington pundits are bragging about.
government
Deceptive economic euphoria
17 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
The solution is not complex if we as a nation reject the notion that the role of government is to use coercive powers to promote welfare and warfare, and instead accept the principle that the role of government is to protect liberty. Only under that system will the euphoria of the politicians be justified.
government
Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens
31 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
The agreement we each make with the government when we pay taxes is that we are getting something in return: defense, infrastructure, and so on. In our age of welfarism, we also expect benefits from the government if we fall sick or unemployed.
government
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.
government
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
It might be more pressing if this were the only impropriety involving President Clinton; lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and the litany of related crimes alleged, are certainly worthy of trial under our system of government.
government
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Far more pressing than the results of DNA tests on a cocktail dress are investigations into whether this president allowed highly-classified missile technology to be transferred to the communist Chinese government in exchange for campaign donations. The allegations and accompanying evidence are compelling, if not yet complete, to indicate that this has indeed been the case. Let us be clear about this: the government of China is not our ally, and in fact has nuclear missiles aimed at our cities. While we are "at peace," we should be mindful that China is a foreign government with a system diametrically opposed to our own.
government
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
If this president not only broke the law by accepting donations from a potentially hostile foreign government, but proceeded to trade our nation's military secrets as a "quid pro quo," then this president must be impeached.
government
Inconsistency must be addressed
14 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
For many years now, our federal government has waged a war on drug use. This "war" has been both figurative and literal. And yet at the same time, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize the very drug dealers and users who we are also trying to eliminate.
government
Inconsistency must be addressed
14 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
When the federal government began the "housing" programs, it was with the intention of providing adequate shelter to low-income families. Today, federal housing projects are among the most dangerous sections of a town, and are rapidly becoming little more than shelters for scurrilous behavior.
government
Inconsistency must be addressed
14 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
The sad reality is that, in this case, taxpayers are the unwilling enablers of drug sellers and users. By refusing to evict those who break our laws, the federal government forces you and your family to literally subsidize the very lives of those engaging in illegal activity.
government
The problem is the currency
21 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
A limited government designed to protect liberty and provide a national offense is one that could easily be managed with minimal taxes, but it would also require that we follow the advise of the Founders who explicitly admonished us not "to emit bills of credit" that is, paper money and use only silver and gold as legal tender. We need to lay plans for our future because we are rapidly approaching a time of crisis and chaos.
government
Tax measure includes version of Paul legislation
05 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
Government must stop limiting the choices available to parents, and instead work to free parents of the taxes and regulations which keep them providing for their children in the ways best suited for their family.
government
Tax measure provides income averaging
12 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Agriculture, by its very nature, is cyclical. To say that there are "good years" and "bad years" in agriculture is almost a redundancy; it is merely a fact of life. A fact which until very recently was generally understood by the public, but actually used against farmers by the government's tax collectors.
government
Tax measure provides income averaging
12 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
But our federal government has seen fit to use the facts of agricultural life against farmers to get a few more dollars of revenue. This occurs by taxing agriculture at the extremely high-income rates in the good years because on paper the farmer made a lot of money. They leave out of the equation that the previous year may have been a disaster because of drought, flood, market fluctuations or other problems, resulting in perhaps literally no income for the farmer and his family.
government
Tax measure provides income averaging
12 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
While Congress and the federal government cannot control the weather, they can ensure that hard working Americans are not unfairly punished under our tax law because the nature of their business is so tied with nature's cycles.
government
Tax measure provides income averaging
12 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Government should exist not to tie the hands and feet of those working to improve their lives, but to allow people to engage unhindered in the "pursuit of happiness."
government
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
If the problem was merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the lucky few, benefits are received when governments inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons.
government
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be a central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.
government
Economic crisis looms
19 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 17 ... Cached
Fourth, policies must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed.
government
The Ominous Budget Deal
26 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
More than 8,000 pages of small print governmentese make up the Omnibus spending package recently approved by the US Congress, over the objections of myself and numerous other conservatives from Texas and around the country. The devilish details hidden in the package will remain obscured for weeks or months, until Americans have the chance to scour through the pages.
government
The Ominous Budget Deal
26 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
For the first time, United Nations inspectors will be allowed to operate on US soil as if we were a rogue nation threatening international stability. That we are allowing foreign governments and inspectors to dictate how we protect ourselves is unconscionable.
government
Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again
02 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
This latest peace deal is most damaging in the precedence it sets. The top demand of the Israelis was that the US must release convicted American spy Jonathon Pollard to their custody or face the prospect of that country walking out. Pollard was a US Navy intelligence officer who, in the mid-1980s, began selling US secrets to Israel. He was sent to jail for life for his treason, but the Israeli government wants him freed.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Perhaps the most pressing issue before our nation is that of personal privacy. The last several years have seen a dramatic rise -- though certainly not discussed by the press or in politically polite company -- in attempts by the government to claim greater privileges in violating the privacy of American citizens.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
For a Republican Member of Congress like me, it would perhaps be more comforting to claim that these incidents were all being perpetrated by the "liberal Democrats." While accusing the Republicans of violating his privacy, President Clinton’s Administration has indeed been at the front of the charge to increase the government’s ability to pry into our personal affairs and monitor our movements, he has had many willing allies in the so-called "conservative" camp.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
This past year saw several minor victories for those of us wanting to turn-back this trend toward a more intrusive government. We succeeded in forestalling implementation of the national medical database and the national ID for one calendar year.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Under the guise of "preventing fraud," the medical database would require that every aspect of an individual’s medical history be linked together and easily accessible to government officials and researchers. And what is accessible to government officials and researchers for "good" purposes is also accessible to computer hackers. Suddenly companies would pay for "illegal" information on your medical history, to determine the risk you pose to their benefits package. Or, a political opponent brings up an embarrassing tidbit from your medical past. Or ... the possibilities are endless, including the likelihood that patients will stop confiding in their doctors if it is possible that those remarks could be transcribed into a computer database. Of course, the ultimate solution is to exclude government from its unconstitutional role as a health care provider.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
A fundamental question that must be addressed is this: why does the government need to know our every move? Without fail, the answer is always "fighting crime." But at what point does the "fighting" of crime become itself a crime?
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
How would this work? If someone you know is suspected by the government of doing something criminal, and that friend comes over for dinner, the FBI wants the authority to tap your line without a court order -- just in case the criminal uses your phone.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Criminal law enforcement, of course, is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
government
Privacy tops agenda
09 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
We as a nation must jealously guard our constitutional rights and American heritage of liberty. To assume we can at the same time be a nation of liberty and have a government which monitors our every move and word is foolishly inconsistent.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
The narrow margin between Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives will wreck havoc for whoever ends up in charge. However, the frustration and gridlock may not be all that bad for those of us who want to slow the growth of the federal government.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
But are "on-time trains" such a good thing if they carry off more of our money and freedoms while delivering more regulations? It may be that our leaders should demand that we stop the trains entirely. In the last four years, very little legislation has actually been championed to shrink the size and scope of the federal government. A change of leadership probably will not significantly change this record.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Too often the leadership debate is only over which version of government intervention we want. Those seeking high office often pay lip service to "less government," but their voting records rarely show a consistent opposition to big government. So the debates are more over form than substance -- TV performance, getting the growing budget passed on time, satisfying the multitude of demands from the countless groups that have come to believe they are entitled to taxpayer largesse.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
The clashes are over big-government details: the welfare poor versus the welfare rich; a foreign policy of propping up right-wing dictators versus left-wing dictators; a war on poverty or a war on drugs; "protecting" the environment or bailing out the IMF. But in the Halls of Congress, little said and less is done about getting the government out of our lives, out of our wallets and off our land.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
In 1994 the American people expressed a desire for leaders who push for less government. The lackadaisical effort, poor results and perceived sell-outs of the last four years have disillusioned those voters. So in 1998, voters were demoralized to the point of simply boycotting the polls, adding to the post-WWII trend of an understandable apathy.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Both parties, unfortunately, endorse the use of government force to police the world, to redistribute wealth domestically and internationally, and to manipulate money and credit. Both allow government to invade our privacy as a trade-off for the government financing of education, medical care, and housing, arguing such invasion is necessary to run the system efficiently, and prevent waste and fraud. In the name of "public safety," neither party resists the federal government’s takeover of local law enforcement.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
The contest is not about choosing between big or small government, but merely endorsing the one version of Republican big government over another that can "best compete" with a Democrat version of big government. We should expect continued clashes over whose ox is getting gored and whose friends are receiving benefits, but not over questions of the appropriateness of government goring any ox or rewarding/harming political bedfellows.
government
Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race
16 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
We should all hope for the day when choosing leaders means choosing between those who endorse big government and those who pursue the form of government prescribed by the Constitution.
government
Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems
23 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
That trusty villain Saddam Hussein. Remember him? Trained by our government, supported with our tax dollars, encouraged by our leaders. He became the global miscreant after he -- a thug, no doubt -- invaded another country of thuggish status. But the country he invaded was run by thugs with whom we had a closer relationship than he, so Saddam's Iraq became the new target of hatred and scorn -- and misuse of American military might.
government
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.
government
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
This massive new program -- euphemistically called "Know Your Customer" -- would convert our nation's banks into wholly owned subsidiaries of the government-wide movement to invade every aspect of Americans' privacy.
government
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
The government regulators defend the new rules, saying that such measures are needed to "combat illicit activities."
government
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
That an innocent man may be presumed guilty lest he prove himself otherwise is a concept embraced more and more by our government regulators and lawmakers, though in absolute conflict with our national legal tradition.
government
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
In a society founded in freedom and liberty, individuals must be allowed to engage in life without fear of their actions being monitored and misinterpreted by zealous government agents. Sadly, that is not the burgeoning legacy of the 20th Century. Big government, big banks, big… everything is watching and waiting.
government
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
It is also foolish to think that the motives of the FDA are as pure as some would have us believe. As an entity run by politicians, the FDA is susceptible to the same political shenanigans as other government agencies. Friends of politicians get preferential treatment in military construction, tax-code revisions and highway projects.
government
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Opposition to the FDA's unilateral control of our nation's medicinal drug market is seen as heretical to the concept of government-knows-best.
government
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
After all, goes the pro-FDA reasoning, how can consumers be protected from dangerous products by anyone but the government? Given how often the FDA grants approval then later revokes their endorsement after the item is found unsafe, the better question might be how to protect consumers from FDA-approved products.
government
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 18 ... Cached
The growing Nanny State assumes Americans are mindless sheep in need of the omnipotent wisdom of the government in every aspect of their lives. In reality, what America need is less government and more individual responsibility.
government
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
That may be true, though no more so than any of the more socialist systems in the world perceived as "inexpensive" by those desiring similar government programs here. In those nations, the cost is hidden in individual tax-rates in excess of fifty percent, so the extremely high costs for care are still being paid by the patient, they just don't write the check to the doctor, they write it to the tax collector.
government
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
For many years, the federal government has taken an ever-expanding role in our nation's medical care through regulatory and legislative activism. Of course, to oppose federal involvement is to be "anti-health care" or "anti-patient." Never mind that routine health care is arguably less efficient and less accessible than in our recent past, with sick people receiving worse care at higher costs.
government
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Most obviously, there is the direct government meddling. Bureaucrats, under authority granted to them by years of irresponsible congressional action, now dictate how medical care is to be offered, in what timetables, quantities and situations. Of course, these directives have nothing to do with the realities of medicine or even the demands of the market, but are simply political directives issued for soundbite effectiveness. While sounding nice, these regulations increase costs by forcing the medical provider to expend greater resources to meet the regulations.
government
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Resources once devoted to assisting patients with their needs must be diverted to meeting bureaucratic regulations. Federal regulations imposed on state governments regarding medical care delivery, or on insurance providers, or employers, or directly on doctors and hospitals, all eventually come back to the consumer in the form of higher checkout costs.
government
Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes
21 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
No proposition is more serious than placing in harms' way the lives of our nation's soldiers. Wars are instituted by governments, but it is the youth that pay the ultimate price.
government
Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes
21 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
It is for this reason that the Constitution speaks clearly about where the power for engaging troops in battle must rest. In Article 1, Section 8, the Constitution gives the power to "declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" solely to the House of Representatives. The reason for this is clear; the House is the branch of the federal government closest to the people, standing for election the most often, and therefore the most accountable.
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
Reckless government tool simply does not work
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the "embargo."
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government taking Americans' tax dollars to prop-up other nations.
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we can somehow spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
Third, embargoes are more often levied for political points, rather than sound policy. In times of war, it is perhaps reasonable to expect government to prevent Americans from selling goods to our declared enemies. But in a time of peace, it is difficult to imagine the benefits to our people, or others, of an embargo. There was no consistency in having had economic relations with the Soviet Union, a nation that pointed nuclear missiles at our shores for decades, while refusing to allow American pharmaceutical companies to sell life-saving drugs to the people in Cuba, a poor island country with no weapons that could endanger us.
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people will inevitably make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well being of Americans.
government
Embargoes most destructive at home
28 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 17 ... Cached
Like no other form of government meddling, embargoes are destructive and should be ended without delay.
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 2 ... Cached
Federal government needs to step out of education
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Sadly, though, the solutions often presented are nothing more than different sides of the same big-government coin. President Clinton says he wants to fund a hundred-thousand new teachers for the classrooms, though the specifics of the program mean billions of dollars with more federal control and more bureaucrats, but not many teachers.
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Operating through existing grant programs and the so-called "free lunch" initiatives, the federal government has a stifling stranglehold on education that plays to the lowest common denominators.
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
What's needed to release this trend toward mediocrity is not more federal spending and programs, but rather less federal intervention and more real parental control. No one should oppose making sure kids get the best education possible. Of course, the vested interests in public education programs are the first to oppose parental choice, because any given parent might choose an option other than the government schools.
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Different problems exist in different places and that is precisely why centralized education policies do not work. The reality is that the challenges and problems faced by one locale is not an issue in another. The answer is not to deny this reality, but rather to aggressively promote an honest solution. In a word, that solution is defederalization. The federal government should reduce the federal tax burden so that states and localities, working closely with parents, can best provide for their own educational needs.
government
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 17 ... Cached
Parents know best the educational needs of their children. It's time for the federal government to get out of the way.
government
Protecting integrity of Social Security
11 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Regardless of what one thinks of the public policy that gives us Social Security, there is no denying that the funds of the program have been mismanaged and abused by the government. At every paycheck, Americans see a portion of their pay reduced by taxes taken specifically for the Social Security Trust Fund. The understanding, of course, is that the taxes are held in trust for that worker's retirement years. And because every American is issued a "Social Security" account number, the perception is further bolstered that the taxes are held in reserve for that specific person in an individual account.
government
Protecting integrity of Social Security
11 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
The Social Security Trust Fund has for decades become a slush fund for the big-government programs of Congress and the President. In fact, close to a half-a-trillion dollars have been taken from the trust fund over the year.
government
Protecting integrity of Social Security
11 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The trust fund has little actual money in it; it instead holds IOUs from the federal government, promising to eventually -- someday, maybe -- pay back the fund.
government
Protecting integrity of Social Security
11 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
It must be a top priority for this new Congress to restore the integrity of the Social Security trust system. The Social Security Preservation Act will do this by making it illegal for the government to use the trust funds for any purpose except administering the Social Security system.
government
Protecting integrity of Social Security
11 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Restoring the integrity of the trust system is of critical importance. Billions of dollars are being diverted from their intended purposes, yet many in Washington chant the "save Social Security" mantra while taking more and more out of the fund. So when we hear that Congress might change the Social Security retirement age, or increase the Social Security tax, or we worry whether senior citizens' Social Security checks will be secure, remember it is the federal government that is robbing our trust funds to pay for big-spending habits.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
To challenge this, I recently introduced The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999 (H.R. 220), legislation forbidding the federal government from establishing national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of monitoring, overseeing, or regulating the private transactions between American citizens.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
One of the more disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the government is more in line with the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired the nation's founders.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Another section of the bill will stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a "unique health identifier." This identifier would logically lead to a national database containing the detailed medical history of all Americans. As a practicing OB/GYN for more than 30 years, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity and private nature of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient placing absolute trust in the doctor not to discuss with anyone her health problems. What will happen to that trust when patients know that all information given to their doctor must be placed in a government accessible database?
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Some claim the federal government needs these powers to prevent criminal activity or to "protect" us from fraud committed against government health care agencies. Of course, monitoring the movements of every American to catch those few involved in illegal activity is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure without warrants. The federal government does not have the right to treat Americans as criminals by spying on their relationships with doctors, employers and bankers. Likewise, since the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to operate health care agencies, the threat of fraud would evaporate with the end of these programs.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason, and therefore doomed to failure is anything short of repealing laws that violate personal privacy.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
While most members of Congress are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, they will consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward the government's prying eyes. My office has been inundated with calls from around my district, state and, indeed, the nation, encouraging my efforts to thwart these attacks on our privacy. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a taxpayer who wants the government to further erode their privacy.
government
Stopping the Surveillance State
18 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state. National IDs and massive government databases are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 3 ... Cached
Government invest in market must be opposed
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
resident Clinton raised a number of bad ideas last week in his State of the Union address. His theme for the evening was "more," as in more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxes and more violations of the Constitution.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Perhaps the worst of his propositions is the proposal to allow the federal government to invest in the stock market. Under the Clinton plan, a quarter of the Social Security funds would be invested in the stock market.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
As it is, Social Security is approaching bankruptcy and doesn't have any cash to invest. For decades congresses and presidents have raided the fund to bolster big-government programs. The president's shady investment plan hinges on investing cash that simply isn't there.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Constitutionally, there is simply no provision for allowing the federal government to become a "part owner" in private companies.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
It is that last component which is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the president's plan. Are we to assume that the government will invest billions of dollars in stocks, and yet not want to have a voice in the way the companies operate? That would deny the way our government operates. Look at education; the federal government, unconstitutionally, subsidizes approximately eight percent of the public education budget. Yet the strings attached to that small percentage gives the federal government near-absolute control in one way or another over nearly every aspect of the operations in individual school districts.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Under the president's plan, government will become a very loud part-owner of thousands of companies. And because government will want to ensure a return on its investments (which is fundamentally impossible), one shudders at the potential rules and regulations that would be imposed on the marketplace in general, and those companies specifically.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
This president firmly believes government knows best -- in everything. While he would deny individual Americans the right to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to savings and investment programs of their choosing, this president would dump billions into the stock market so he and his cronies can effectively nationalize our economy, while using the proceeds to pay for more needless government programs.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
Such plans not only bode wretched possibilities for the nation and economy in general, but are also harmful to the individual. Mr. Greenspan has pointed out, correctly, that some state government's already have pension plans for their employees, and that these accounts have an average return two percent or worse than privately run accounts.
government
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
Government investment in the stock market is a path that must not be taken, and a Pandora's Box that should never be opened. The results could be unimaginably dangerous for the nation, and simply unprofitable for the individual.
government
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
It has turned into a case of government agencies against everyone else.
government
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Almost three months ago I first reported on the proposed regulations brought forward by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other regulatory agencies. These regs would turn bank tellers from reluctant information-gathers to unwilling investigators for the federal government's ongoing War-on-Everything -- which obviously includes the privacy of ordinary Americans.
government
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Under the existing Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions already must report large transactions to the government. Under these new rules, not only would the banks have to collect the raw data on transactions like a low-level spy but will now be required to serve as the government's front-line investigators. Investigating who and what? Everyone, and everything financial. Forget the Fourth Amendment, forget the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and forget search warrants; these regulations assume everyone is as guilty as Al Capone.
government
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The rules require banks to create profiles on its customers' accounts, and when a customer steps outside that profile, he or she must be reported to the federal government for "suspicious" activity. In addition, the banks will have to track the source of the deposits and, again, report that information to the government. A bank teller would have to report as "suspicious" the 20-year-old, minority single mother who makes an "out-of-profile" $500 cash deposit. That the cash was the gift from a family member, and not funds earned illicitly, would be an inconvenient fact she may never have the opportunity to present. Under current drug-forfeiture laws, her account could be seized, and assets forfeited, without her ever being charged with -- let alone tried for -- any crime.
government
Orwellian rules face major opposition
01 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Understandably, American consumers aren't thrilled either. Once again the federal government is creating yet another file on them; it is creating fresh opportunity for an over-eager bureaucrat to make a mistake and destroy an innocent person's life.
government
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
This, of course, begs the question as to whether or not one has a right to more than can be secured by voluntary exchange in the marketplace, or if the federal government should assume the role of deciding who gets what property in what amount and at whose expense.
government
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
The root cause of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate "exclusive dealings" contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter.
government
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. Government's attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, however, federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights.
government
A right to network TV?
08 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
I will continue to consistently oppose all governmental barriers to the free functioning of markets -- markets, which if allowed to function, will maximize viewer choices at the most reasonable costs.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The "surplus" claim is derived, at its most basic level, from the fact that there are technically more "revenues" coming into the federal government coffers than expenditures. That "fact," however, overlooks several important factors. Most pressing of those is that there is no actual money in the federal trust funds. Those funds -- Social Security, highway, airport, etc. -- have been (and continue to be) robbed by the politicians and replaced with government IOUs. The money from the funds has gone to pay for liberal social programs and foreign military adventurism. The "surplus" difference between the revenues and expenditures includes the continued theft from the trust funds.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
The debt will increase unless serious changes are made; changes that have nothing to do with creating more government programs and further political shenanigans.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
A real solution to our budget malaise is putting the federal government on a diet. It's time for the unconstitutional programs of the past to simply go away; the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the pointless, deadly, expensive foreign wars.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The time has also come for honesty in accounting. The government taxes every American at 15 percent for Social Security, using the fiction that the cash is waiting in a trust fund for retirement to placate us. We must restore the integrity of the trust funds by stopping the politicians from being able to take the money in the first place. I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, to do just that.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
To the extent that the politicians are able to rob from the trust funds is the extent to which they are going to continue to lie about state of our government's fiscal soundness, and continue the reckless spending that has been the hallmark of the 20th Century.
government
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Integrity is a critical-need in our government; integrity for our trust funds and integrity in budgeting. But most importantly, we need to find integrity in our leaders. For men and women and principle will not lie, cheat and steal.
government
Phase-in of tax cuts make code more complex
01 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
As Americans begin the arduous task of preparing their tax returns for 1998, it is important to keep in mind several important changes to the tax code that could significantly affect how much they owe the government -- or how much the government needs to refund.
government
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
These proposed regulations, which I have written about for almost a year, would virtually eliminate any vestiges of privacy remaining in our financial system. In addition to subverting the Constitution's Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, these regulations would -- if enacted -- wreak havoc on our system of finance. Banks would be required to monitor every transaction of its customers, create detailed profiles based on that monitoring, and then notify federal agencies any time a customer deviated -- even slightly -- from that profile. All the records would be accessible at any time to the federal government.
government
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The real problem is not the specifics of this particular set of regulations, but the entire process that allows these regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, though, there are some in Congress who irrationally believe one can violate the Constitution's strict prohibition against federal crime laws, support a multitude of big-government programs like the failed "war on drugs," yet still respect individual privacy. The logical fallacy of such a belief would be almost laughable, were it not so dangerous and irresponsible.
government
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Dangerous because those Members of Congress will now -- having witnessed a minor victory -- forget about the importance of this issue and move on to the next cause du jour. These members of Congress are content only to place inconvenient speed bumps in the way of regulators bent on undermining our form of government.
government
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
I believe, however, we need to take these powers out of the hands of the regulators altogether. Government agencies should not have the power to draft an entire industry into their service, nor should they be allowed to unilaterally declare as criminal the behavior of every American citizen.
government
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
This is why I will not relent in my crusade to reign in these unconstitutional agencies, which operate often in direct opposition to our form of government and tradition of liberty.
government
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
So rather than re-examine the market (which is unwilling to pay the high-prices brought on by government regulations and union-imposed wages), the advocates of big government and forced unionism demand that Congress close down what remains of the free market.
government
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
"Fair trade!" has become the rallying cry. Sadly, though, there is little "fair" about these policies, and even less about their outcome. This "fairness" means gouging consumers for higher prices using the force of government to protect the rackets of organizations unwilling to work within the system of voluntary exchange.
government
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
For while many in Washington call themselves "free-traders," but there is nothing free about their agendas. The so-called "free-trader" in Congress is often one who believes in subsidizing trade; that is, using taxpayer dollars to prop-up foreign governments on the condition that those governments then use the money to purchase goods from certain American companies (which in turn lobby for "protections," creating a vicious cycle).
government
Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda
22 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
True free trade involves neither protectionism nor subsidization. Free trade recognizes that market forces, not government regulations or spending packages, will best allocate resources; even across political borders.
government
Burning bridges
29 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Yet, for an Administration enthralled with the notion of a paternalistic government that cares for everyone, everywhere, all the time, President Clinton's actions in Serbia should not be surprising. Just as this president believes he and his government can best order the lives of each American citizen (he recently said that Americans shouldn't be given a tax cut because they would not spend the money as wisely as he and his administration would), he is confident that he can solve the problems of the world. His track record suggests otherwise; despite the fanfare and speeches, there is still violence raging from the Middle East to Ireland -- all great "successes" for this president.
government
Playing with matches in the powder keg
05 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
At the same time, this week, we learned that Russia is moving ships into Balkan Sea. While publicly remaining neutral on the US/NATO attacks on the sovereign nation of Serbia, the Russians have been traditional allies of the Serbs. Massive anti-American demonstrations in Moscow cannot long go unnoticed by the Russian politicians, whose government is, at best, tenuously held together.
government
Get to know your banker
12 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
When government regulators recently announced they were pulling the plug -- for now, at least -- on plans to strip away the financial privacy of all Americans, one can imagine they did so with a knowing smirk on their face.
government
Get to know your banker
12 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
A smirk because they knew what most Americans do not: most big banks already have "Know Your Customer" programs in place. The regulations by that name, proposed last December, would require banks to keep records on the spending and savings habits of every client, with any deviation at all being reported to the IRS, FBI, DEA and other government agencies as being "suspicious." Those agencies, in turn, would be able to freeze accounts and seize assets -- essentially destroying a person's life -- without there ever being a court order or proof of criminal wrongdoing.
government
Get to know your banker
12 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
I would suggest that anyone concerned about financial privacy send a letter to their bank, asking those questions and requesting a response in writing. If the bank does have these programs which are not required, the customer should demand that such files not be kept. If the bank gets enough pressure from their customers, they will change their policies -- after all, what good is volunteering to assist the government in invading privacy if their customers leave in favor of other institutions that will not?
government
Rein-in the President
19 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The US Constitution gives only Congress the authority to declare war. Presidents and their spin-doctors can talk all they want about "police actions" and "peace-keeping operations," but any one with common sense knows that when one country's government drops bombs on another sovereign nation, it is an act of war. Sadly, though, Congress has - over the last fifty years - ceded its war-making power to the executive branch. Today it is commonly, though erroneously, believed by a majority of Americans that presidents can send troops to war without even getting input from Congress.
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
It cannot be stated too often that we do not enjoy a free marketplace in the United States. In fact, the market is fraught with government intervention at every level. Nothing, it seems, can long escape a politician or bureaucrat eager to shape the world in their image of "fairness."
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Of course, one must not rush to paint local cable companies as the victim. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege. When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Most recently the disease of government intervention has come in the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, strangely, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their product available to cable and satellite service providers.
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
So now not only will the government tell the service provider which programs to carry, but at what price to pay for the opportunity.
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Up until now must-carry rules have applied only to cable. Now, in a misguided effort to "level the playing field," rather than repeal the excessive regulation on cable service providers Congress will consider legislation to force "must-carry" regulation upon satellite providers. Of course, leave it to government to want more regulations, higher costs and less freedom for consumers
government
'Must-Carry' must be dropped
26 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
To best serve consumers, and to more fully embrace the philosophy of the free market, Congress should act to remove the restrictive regulations placed on the services cable companies can provide, as well as the barriers that exist giving those companies monopolistic power. As technology expands, we must ensure outmoded notions like government intervention in the market goes the way of the black-and-white set and rabbit-ear antennas.
government
Parents, teachers need freedom
10 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 10 May 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
But it is a mistake for us to blame our kids' teachers for those obstacles. Indeed, the lion share of the blame should be placed at the feet of congresses, presidents and federal bureaucrats who for more than thirty years have improperly intervened in local educational issues. As the federal government has stepped into education, we have seen test scores decline, public confidence in education plummet, and incidents of violence on school grounds escalate.
government
Parents, teachers need freedom
10 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 10 May 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The insanity of the federal government's imposition of nonsensical rules and regulations is demonstrated by a recent incident in Virginia, just five miles from Capitol Hill. As reported recently in the Washington Times, it seems six students brought a weapon to school. Teachers learned of this and quickly moved to deal with the kids. All six were to be expelled, but one managed to avoid any punishment whatsoever. Why was the potentially dangerous student left in the student population? Under federal law, school officials were prohibited from expelling him because he is a "learning disabled" student. His "disability"? A "weakness in written language skills."
government
Parents, teachers need freedom
10 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 10 May 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
To combat this, I introduced HR 1706; this legislation will prohibit a national teacher certification test. In addition, it will prohibit the federal government from "punishing" states and local districts for refusing to go along with federal dictates.
government
Parents, teachers need freedom
10 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 10 May 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Certification of teachers may make sense, but that is a decision that should be made by parents, local schools and the state governments.
government
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
When dealing with the federal government, one thing is certain: if a bad situation can be made worse, Congress will typically find a way to do so.
government
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
For as bad as those are, however, the federal government is now going to step in and make things worse. Much worse.
government
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.
government
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
At that point, you and your fellow consumers of the government-granted monopoly power company will want to be compensated for your losses. But, alas, the federal government will have protected you from yourself. You might get something, but not nearly what you deserve for the company's inaction.
government
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
But do not think this is a limited instance. Rather, some are clamoring for the federal government to intervene in all civil suits such as those against gun manufacturers. Soon, as with the issues of abortion and education, the minor intrusion of the federal government in contract and tort law will soon amount to a complete take-over of matters constitutionally left to the states.
government
Post Office stamps out privacy
24 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Because the federal government has granted a monopoly on first-class mail delivery to the Postal Service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with them. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a commercial mail receiving agency with a choice: either surrender your right to privacy, or surrender your right to receive legal mail in the manner you prefer.
government
Post Office stamps out privacy
24 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The post office likes this database because it will give them a 100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a Postal Service PO Box and related services. Thus the Postal Service could mail advertisements to these people explaining, perhaps, how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.
government
Post Office stamps out privacy
24 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
During the rule's comment period, more than 8,000 people spoke against, and only ten in favor of it. But to those supporting the rule, all is justified because they claim it is necessary to crack down on criminal activities. First, the federal role in crime, even if committed in "interstate commerce," is a limited one. More importantly, just because someone may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal.
government
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
One of the more troubling revelations is that the Justice Department refused wiretaps on the phone of a suspected Chinese spy. It is ironic because the Clinton Administration has long supported policies that would allow government agents to pry into all our financial records, computer usage and, yes, even tap our phones, without so much as a court order. So while the President and his appointees want an unlimited ability to spy on law-abiding citizens, they refuse to do much to protect our secrets from the communist Chinese.
government
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Congress has an obligation to safeguard our nation from foreign powers. The Constitution clearly defines protection of national security as one of the very few actual powers of the federal government.
government
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means "subsidized trade," or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention.
government
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
It is indisputable that individuals know better how to provide for their families than government. It is also indisputable that a company is better equipped to know what its market will tolerate than a bureaucrat in Washington. In this way, a person is able to determine what goods best meet their individual needs, weighing numerous factors in their decision. But when government intervenes, it no longer becomes possible for an individual to provide for their family and business in the most expedient fashion. This is the antithesis of liberty.
government
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.
government
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
It should also be noted that in each "sensational" case, the violence has occurred in government-run schools where the virtues of gun control and federal law enforcement are extolled daily. This is at a time when increasing numbers of people, and especially those of (some might say) the "pro-gun" political persuasion, are choosing private or home schools. Yet we do not hear of kids slaughtering 12 peers and a teacher at a church school.
government
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
However, one must never allow reality to interfere with the goals of big government advocates. The choir of statists has been singing the hymn of more federal regulations, laws, and control. Some, like Sara Brady and fellow traveler Bill Clinton, unabashedly call for the ban of handguns, or at least the federal registration of all gun owners. This, despite the fact no such law would have saved a single young life. Again, reality is not an issue.
government
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
In rushing to "do something," even good people are tempted to promote a very bad idea, presenting Americans with a false choice: give up the precious liberties of Bill of Rights and cede greater power to the federal government, or face more youth violence. Reality, of course, demonstrates something very different.
government
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Usually, half of the Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and that is good. The First Amendment states plainly that "Congress shall make no laws" to limit free speech, the press, the practice of religion, or the ability of Americans to assemble in protest of their government.
government
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
The other half of the Congress, on average, is quite capable and anxious to defend the Second Amendment, and that is good. After all, our founding fathers envisioned a well-armed populace as the ultimate check on government tyranny. If some future legislators and presidents had designs on limiting our divinely endowed liberties, our founders believed the Second would hold such impulses in check.
government
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
But there is so much more to our Constitution, and the principles of our republican form of government, that have been so widely abused, ignored and all but erased by both Democrats and Republicans in their zeal to grab political power.
government
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
As recently as the middle of this century, crime control was considered a local matter. For good reason: it is the way the Constitution is designed, and the way it should be. Yet every day Congress writes more criminal laws, taking more authority from our state and local governments, and moving closer to a national police state.
government
Let liberty ring loudly
21 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Before Congress passes more laws, and before individuals demand that Washington solve every problem, we should first seriously consider a simple question: "Does the Constitution allow the federal government to do this?" The question should never be, "Can I use this to get elected?", nor, "Is it easier to send the problem to Washington?", and certainly not, "Will it make people feel better if Congress does this?"
government
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court -- in direct contradiction to the Constitution's 10th Amendment -- finally ruled against the state law.
government
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may "make no laws" and is prohibited from "abridging" the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.
government
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation -- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin -- were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.
government
Flag Amendment is a reckless solution
28 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 3 ... Cached
Americans work past Independence Day to pay cost of government
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
They declared, in radical terms both then and now, that "all men are created equal" and are endowed with certain "inalienable rights," rights that government cannot take away for government does not grant them.
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
In fact, most Texans will not start working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans work from January until early July just to pay their federal income tax, states and local taxes, and the calculated cost of regulation. Almost no one in America has yet begun going to work to pay for food, clothing, shelter or their children's education. It was just on June 22 that Americans stopped working to pay for the federal government. The next several weeks will pay the costs of state and local government.
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
All too often, though, politicians get the message that their constituents do indeed want unconstitutional spending cut and bloated government put on a diet -- just not in their community or for their particular pet project. This leads to the famous compromises; compromises that sound fine when a politician stands on the stump at election time, but lose luster when the bill comes due on Tax Day.
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Our basic problem is not that we are over-taxed, out-spent or under-represented, it is that we have lost sight of a simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.
government
A new declaration: more liberty, fewer taxes
05 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans will truly be free.
government
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The mistake, though, is in thinking the problem can be fixed simply by putting more restrictions on the average American. These so-called reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem can be traced past the office holders because government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one's self by "investing" in politicians.
government
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.
government
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Those pushing finance reform argue the fault rests only with those who are trying to influence government; never is fault assigned, of course, to those congressmen who create the environment that pressures the system to generate abuse. Members of Congress thereby avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead blame those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, despite the fact that political participation is among the most basic of rights bestowed on all Americans.
government
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
All will agree that it is shameful for an elected official to capitulate to well-funded special interest groups. Unwilling to act ethically on their own, politicians will clamor for a system that diminishes the need to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.
government
Campaign reform misses target
12 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
More regulation of political activism through control of private money, instead of addressing the root problem of an overly-influential government, only drives the money further underground, and thereby giving select groups a strong advantage over the honest candidate who seeks to ethically work for smaller, constitutional government.
government
Lavish pay and benefits have no merit
19 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 19 July 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
As the cynicism of Americans for their government grows, some congressmen will cast a vote for a big pay raise while expressing shock at the public mistrust.
government
Lavish pay and benefits have no merit
19 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 19 July 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Our founding fathers wisely saw service in elected government as a temporary function, not a lifetime pursuit. They valued the citizen-legislator, who saw himself as a public servant while still making a living in the private sector.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 3 ... Cached
Taxpayers need a real break from cost of government
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The American public is, quite simply, over-taxed. More than half the income of the average American goes to paying the cost of government. Americans pay more for their government than they do the combined cost of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and education.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Taxpayers need a break. Perhaps the most disgusting and philosophically disgusting idea is that tax cuts "cost" the government. This misguided notion comes from defenders of a statist mindset, who believe that all things -- ranging from the most common of items to the first fruits of our labor to our very lives -- are owned by the government.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The reality, of course, is that government does not have any money except what it takes from the taxpayer.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Instead of standing firm, congressional leadership bowed to statist pressure and made significant changes to the package. The income tax reduction was itself reduced. The marriage tax stays on the books for another year. The capital gains and death taxes are only slightly reduced. And the income tax reductions hinge on there being no increases in interest outlays for total US federal government debt. Given this provision, the tax cut is very unlikely.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
Even under this "historic" tax-cut plan, Americans will still work more than half the year to pay the cost of government. Further, most of the tax cuts are only fully realized ten years from now. While some talk about benefits years down the fiscal road, Congress can only draft budgets for a single year; what is passed in one fiscal year can be erased in the next. And as one might imagine, the tax cuts for this fiscal year are puny.
government
Reducing the tax reduction
26 July 1999 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Until we root out the notion that all things originate with government; until we banish the idea that government is somehow bearing a burden by not taking so much money from society's producers; until the time comes, we will never see truly historic tax reform.
government
Restricting the Executive Orders
02 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
In the ensuing years, those revolutionaries created a federal government that was not only strictly limited, but also strictly divided among three co-equal branches, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States. Under a truly constitutional approach to our government, every branch has the ability to check the abuses of power by the others.
government
Restricting the Executive Orders
02 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
While kings may have the right to promulgate laws simply by decree, it is Rule of Law which is king in our form of government. By clearly defining the lines of power, while restricting the ability of a single person to arbitrarily impose law, we will further secure the blessings of liberty upon our nation.
government
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Don't steal," reads one of my favorite bumper stickers. "The government doesn't like the competition!"
government
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.
government
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.
government
Legalized theft
09 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 1999 verse 17 ... Cached
Perhaps government also does not like to be outclassed.
government
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The answer is simple. The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it restricts the power of the federal government while ensuring maximum liberty for the individual. This is a problem for those who see government as the panacea to every ill, the protector of all that is good. While the Bill of Rights limits government, liberates the market and empowers the individual, these initiatives inevitably anoint government with greater power, restrict the rights of the individual and shackle the market.
government
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Perhaps, though, that is the problem; the idea that principles should guide our actions is anathema to many. Or, more likely, it is that many in elected office reject the principles of individual liberty and limited government, believing instead that government knows best.
government
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Contrary to the claims of advocates for increased government regulation of health care, the problems we face do not represent market failure, but rather the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health-care market. While it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), in a free market this cannot happen. But when one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as with managed care, merely making an effort to balance government dictated advantages between patients and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates; because we are trying to patch an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress over this -- or any such issue -- should not be a surprise.
government
A flood of bills of rights
16 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
And make no doubt about it: the veritable avalanche of "Bill of Rights" packages before Congress represent more mandates, more government control and fewer liberties for everyone. That they mask their agendas with the phrases of liberty is both deceitful and comforting. Deceitful for obvious reasons; comforting because it reflects an understanding that -- despite our many problems -- Americans remain rightly suspicious of government power and desirous of liberty.
government
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The existence of the mechanisms for a draft reveals a great deal about our state of affairs. It reveals first the belief of many in our government that they are unwilling to maintain a system which the people desire to protect. They cynically suggest that people would not defend their own liberty in the face of a clear and present threat, and so the government-as-patriarch must decide what is best for them.
government
Draft not needed for protection of liberty
23 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
More importantly, it reveals the basic philosophy of our leadership: that all things belong first to the government. After all, taxes are withheld from workers before their paycheck is even cut. This means government gets the first fruits of our labor -- not our God or family. The existence of a draft registration makes it clear that government has first dibs on the life of every man.
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
For years the Clinton Administration, with their willing allies in Congress and the mainstream press, have parroted the line that federal law enforcement officials did nothing wrong in the Branch Davidian stand-off at Waco. Anyone who questioned the government's official position was relegated to being either a far-right extremist, a militia kook, or a follower of the undeniably peculiar David Koresh.
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
It was just weeks after coming to Congress in 1997, while on a national television program, that I was asked about the then-four-year-old case. I responded with the position that the evidence was overwhelmingly strong that everything was not as bureaucrats in the Clinton Administration claimed. I cited recent polling data that indicated that most Americans simply did not trust the government, and that a goodly number feared the increasingly commonplace occurrence of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens.
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Almost immediately the defenders of big government, the administration and the war on civil liberties launched into wild hysterics. I had committed the unpardonable sin of believing the facts rather than the government spin, which attempted to justify the murder of innocent children and untried, uncharged adults
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The Attorney General and her minions in Congress maintained that the conflagration had been a rash act of mass suicide, ignoring that just hours before the raid those same people had requested their phone lines be reconnected. They also ignored the infrared evidence that government agents, as the fire was raging on one side of the house, were entering the home through the back, and that tanks were injecting gases banned under international treaties.
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Worse still for defenders of statism is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were right when they prohibited the federal government from being involved in law enforcement. In Waco, America has seen the face of the growing federal police state, with its heavy emphasis on brute force, military machinery and deadly tactics.
government
Waco: The smoking gun
06 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
With that cavalier attitude so prevalent in federal law enforcement, it is hardly surprising that even greater numbers of Americans now do not trust their government.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Many of the people who attend the games and who are now aghast at this federal intrusion have called my office seeking information. They are upset -- and rightly so -- that the utterance of a simple prayer can be prohibited, despite lip service paid to "freedom of speech." After all, they argue, doesn't the US Constitution's First Amendment strictly prohibit the federal government from interfering in the "free exercise" of religious beliefs?
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
Of course it does. For much of our history, we had a more proper understanding of the correct balances in regards to the Constitution. After all, the First Amendment begins with a very important phrase, "Congress shall make no laws…." This phrase was always understood to mean that while the federal government could not create federal laws restricting religion, or use federal monies to give preference to one religious order over another, it specifically does not apply to the state and local governments. In other words, under a correct reading of the Constitution, a state or local government can allow -- or prohibit -- religious expression in public places.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Yet the Constitution is also very clear in prohibiting the federal government from being involved in a lot of activities, including education. Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and people. Oddly, education is one such power.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
The ability to influence young minds is a tremendous power and awesome responsibility. Our founding fathers correctly denied the federal government this power. They wisely recognized that the people given charge with influencing the education of children should be those who are closest to the children -- parents, the community and the state.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
What the Princeton Review did not mention, though, is even more significant. The most striking difference in education between these two generations has been that the parents of today's teens went through schools that had little or no federal government oversight, while their children's are replete with it.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Because so few have been willing to criticize the increasing reach into the classroom by Washington, DC, bureaucrats, it is in many ways disingenuous to criticize this latest move. If one is willing to let the federal government dictate education policy in the classroom, social policy in the cafeteria, then intervention at the gridiron should be unsurprising.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Until we expel the federal government from our schools, we can only expect them to continue to bully their desires onto the students and community, despite firmly held local beliefs and traditions.
government
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
But because Texans take their high school football -- and everything associated with it -- very seriously, perhaps the federal government has finally pushed too far. Hopefully, federal bureaucrats will be soon find themselves as unwelcome in Texas schools as they have attempted to make God.
government
Punishing accidents, ignoring murder
20 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
But of course, passing laws that actually recognize the full rights of the unborn as a human being is not the intention; that, after all, would require a commitment to principle, rather than politics. Instead, this legislation further enlarges the jurisdiction of the federal government by using an emotionally charged issue as justification, without actually addressing the most pressing concerns.
government
'Say no to high taxes and spending'
27 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
In fact, my constituents are over-taxed, as is every American taxpayer. Half the income of every American goes to pay the cost of government, yet the president does not wish to permit taxpayers keep just slightly more to help make ends meet.
government
'Say no to high taxes and spending'
27 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
While death taxes hit farmers perhaps the hardest of anyone, every American should be upset that this president wants to keep these in place. The death tax assumes everything you have belongs to the government. When you die, supporters of the death-tax claim, those things you have built with after-tax income, belong to the government rather than your heirs.
government
'Say no to high taxes and spending'
27 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course, the president has not been coy about his position on tax cuts. Just a couple months ago he said the federal government could give a tax cut and "trust that you spend it correctly," but he trusts the politicians in DC to be wiser with your money.
government
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Just two weeks ago the president vetoed a modest tax-cut provision that would have been most helpful to small business owners, farmers and middle-income Americans. In vetoing the measure, the president said it was simply too large a tax cut, that the government couldn't afford to "give-up" that money. This week we found out what he wanted done with that money: spend it, but not in America.
government
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Of course, the first fallacy is in suggesting that a tax cut is cost. When someone criticizes a tax cut as "costing too much," they are revealing a basic belief in the tenets of socialism, where all wealth is created by, and belongs to, the government. A tax cut is allowing a productive individual to keep his own money; it does not cost anyone anything. In fact, the only "costs" in the tax system are the taxes levied on individuals.
government
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
This measure is actually another increase in spending for items that are both unconstitutional and immoral. The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to tax Americans so that foreign governments can be subsidized. Even if one could find such a power in the Constitution, it still should not be exercised, as it is reprehensible that a single working mother should struggle to make ends meet while being involuntarily taxed to subsidize the newest government in an unstable region.
government
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
But worse, the president's idea of foreign aid would use American dollars to actually subsidize the foreign competition of American farmers. The president announced Wednesday he wants to cancel competing countries' debt to the United States -- amounting to a $3.5 billion loss for the taxpayers -- from loans we made through government operations, such as the Export-Import Bank. Further, his administration is participating in a $27 billion debt forgiveness initiative by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, of which U.S. taxpayers are principle stakeholders.
government
Confused priorities
04 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Debates over spending and taxes reveal much about who we are as individuals and as a nation. Sadly, spending by the government remains out of control and taxes are too high. And that our priorities are sorely out of line is demonstrated by the fact that our president and his allies would subsidize abortions in distant lands with taxes generated by the sweat of farmers, rather than allow Americans to provide for themselves and their families.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
What made last week's congressional action the equivalent of medical malpractice was that the people operating on the "patient" were the same ones responsible for injury. American health care became what it is today not as a result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
To think that by creating a new level of government bureaucracy -- which all the plans did -- will magically solve the problems is analogous to assuming a wolf can guard the sheep without disastrous consequences ensuing.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO's role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions could have only gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and the profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
But the government intervention in health care pre-dates the 1974 Employee Retriement Income Security Act (ERISA), with Congress granting tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, the costs have artificially risen out of the range of most individuals.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse.
government
Dangerous to our health
11 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
While neither the current system, nor the mess produced by the House vote last week, constitutes traditional socialism, it is rather something almost worse: corporatism. As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington, DC. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
government
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 3 ... Cached
Government "reform" means high costs, less service
government
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The more government has been involved, the greater the costs and distortions. Initially there was little resistance to the federal meddling, since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free, while the patients saw they were getting great access without discernable costs. The nation's medical bill grew as the incentive for patients to economize eroded.
government
Best medicine is liberty
18 October 1999 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
This is precisely what has happened over the last three decades. More and more people, from the lowest economic classes, have been methodically pushed from the system by the cost of greater regulation. The increased number of uninsured then becomes the rallying cry for more government action, which raises costs again…. A vicious cycle, benefiting no one.
government
History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History
01 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
This week I testified at a subcommittee hearing regarding my legislation, HR 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. One of the chief complaints of the American colonists against King George was that he usurped powers that were not rightfully his, and then used those powers to the disadvantage of the people. As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.
government
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
I have never been in favor of the foreign aid giveaway that is NATO. Frankly, the entanglement in European affairs so central to this organization runs completely contrary to the ideas of our nation's founders. These brave men understood that freedom cannot survive within the confines of a centralized state. How much worse then is the fate of American liberty when the arms of government are so extended that they reach, not simply to every nook and cranny of our own nation, but also to cover much of the globe as well?
government
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
What we must do is return our government to its rightful and constitutional functions, and the best way to begin that process is to end involvement in multilateral organizations that extend our commitments far and wide. We have no business making commitments to foreign governments while we are breaking trust with our own nation's senior citizens, military veterans, and taxpayers in general.
government
Time to Change Priorities
08 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
As is so often the case, process is linked with policy. Until we relearn the lessons of the founders, and understand the need to decentralize government, we'll continue to spend untold amounts on bombs, weapons and maintaining troops overseas. Only when we prioritize commitments to our own people will we begin the process of repairing our education and health care systems, and keeping our commitments to America's seniors and taxpayers.
government
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress adjourned Wednesday but only temporarily as they will return Tuesday, November 16th in an attempt to complete the appropriations process. The target adjournment date was more than two weeks earlier on October 29th but due to presidential vetoes of five appropriations bills, the taxpayer-funded budget juggernaut rumbles onward. Spending levels do not appear to be at issue. In fact, the massive Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill authorized nearly twice as much spending as the last Democratic Congress in 1994. It, in fact, would spend $103.6 Billion dollars, which is $10.3 Billion dollars more than last year's appropriation. This is a figure that is, in fact, $1.2 Billion dollars more than Clinton requested in his proposed budget. What is at issue here is clearly not total spending but spending not directed to projects favored by the executive branch. It seems the President has found yet another way to legislate -- by Veto and threat of government shutdown.
government
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
The Constitution, of course, requires all appropriation bills to originate in the House, but when the Interior appropriations bill prohibited funding for implementation of the unratified Kyoto treaty and Clinton's Land Legacy Initiative government land grab at a taxpayer cost of $579 million, that bill was vetoed. Never mind that the infamous National Endowment for the Arts was funded at nearly double the level at which the Administration requested.
government
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
The Commerce Justice State Judiciary appropriations Act was sent to the President with an 11% increase over just last fiscal year (and we are told the era of big government is over). This bill's failure to dictate to the President's liking how state and local governments conduct law enforcement activity was the reason, in part, for this veto. Never mind that the Constitution's enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment leave this matter entirely up to the States.
government
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
In light of Congressional appropriations of more and more expenditures and the Administration's use of legislation and micro-management by veto threat, it seems that almost everyone in Washington has somehow forgotten that the era of big government is supposed to be over.
government
This Year's Successes
22 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
I also introduced HR 1812 this year, to end the needless and inefficient policy of draft registration. The Department of Defense issued a report pointing out why this program is a waste of money and simply makes no sense in light of current personnel requirements consistent with modern warfare. Moreover, my concern is with the threat to personal freedom evidenced by compulsory registration with the federal government.
government
This Year's Successes
22 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
On each of these items, intimately linked with personal freedom from federal government intervention, we were successful in moving the ball forward in this session of Congress. Next year, I will continue to be very active on these issues, as well as working to achieve success in bringing about our vision of a limited federal government in a number of other key policy areas.
government
Floor Votes Reviewed
06 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
This body of law exemplifies much of what is wrong with current legislation. First, these laws were never considered to be the domain of the federal government when our founding fathers crafted our constitution. This approach also considers property an "agent of crime" rather than the person who is actually engaged in an offense, thus making people who have no involvement in criminal activity, subject to loss of property. Finally, these laws resemble a repeal of the idea that individuals are "innocent until proven guilty." Civil asset forfeiture allows for the confiscation of property, prior even to any conviction, and this is the issue my amendment specifically addressed. Although my amendment did not become part of the final bill, I was pleased that we were able to assist Chairman Hyde. While his bill did not become law, and while it is far from a proper repeal of this entire body of law, the fact that Chairman Hyde succeeded in getting his bill passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives is an important first step in the right direction.
government
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Let's face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The WTO is a quasi-governmental agency and hence it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let's call a spade a spade. The WTO is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected, campaign contributors and fat cats get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group. Preferred that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.
government
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the federal government, thus the tariff would be low. The colonists and founders clearly recognized that tariffs are taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign companies. This realization was made obvious by the British government's regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today's protectionists. Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
government
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Today, I want to focus on a more general overview of the last session of Congress before looking ahead next week to our plans for the new year. This last session of Congress was truly a mixed bag, but it is certain that we have not been able to reverse the trend toward bigger and more intrusive federal government.
government
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
Nonetheless, our voice is being heard. On issues such as education, health care and personal privacy, we have begun to see the coming together of broad based coalitions that want only to see the federal government out of the day-to-day lives of the American people. While we do not yet have a majority in Congress, often because certain Republicans from the northeast tend to be every bit as liberal as House Democrats, there is a change afoot in the nation. The American people are largely waking up to the fact that further federal intrusion is not the answer.
government
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Last year we won some victories, small though they may be, because the people spoke. People contacted their Members of Congress and US Senators, often saying, "Enough is enough! It is time for a change!" I know this because I hear from my colleagues who tell me that they have received calls and letters, e-mails and faxes. They tell me their constituents agree with our perspective and our agenda. Namely, my colleagues here know that there is a growing movement to get the federal government off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of the American people. Ideas like medical savings accounts, education tax credits and others are gaining momentum.
government
Overall Review
27 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
Our founding fathers had a clear vision when they left us a Republic at the end of the 18th century. And now, it is incumbent upon all Americans that we remember the lesson they taught over 200 years ago. Namely, the greatest gift we can give to the American people this new year is their very birthright, the gift of freedom. And, in order to do that it is imperative that we restore our government to the constitutional republic of limited federal powers it was designed to be. History has taught and retaught one clear lesson: namely, that it is impossible to reconcile a free citizenry with a concentrated and centralized government.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Still, I believe there are many important areas on which our work must continue to be focused. Much of our work now is educational, aimed at continuing to shed light where our government has gotten off the course intended by our founding fathers, and convincing our fellow citizens of the need to consider these issues anew. This is necessary to restore our Republic to its former greatness.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
One thing on which I will certainly not relent is the issue of tax reduction. In the current climate, with government revenue growing, taking a higher percentage of our people's earnings than at any time in our history, and with the President claiming "surpluses as far as the eye can see," we must press forward and show both the moral imperative, and the plain economic sense, of returning to the American people the hard-earned fruits of their labor.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
This coming year I will also continue to focus considerable attention on issues of personal privacy. Right now, my staff is studying ways to draft a privacy amendment to our constitution. Generally, I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments, especially since the federal government now ignores so much of the existing constitution.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Still, with the federal judges and liberals working to define privacy in a way that our founding fathers would have never intended, and with leftists using so-called privacy legislation to further expand the ever-growing weed that is our federal government, I am convinced the time has come for us to outline, in a clear, concise and constitutional manner, the true definition of privacy rights as our founding fathers would have understood them.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Of course, the only way we are going to truly achieve long term success is by strictly limiting the activities of the federal government. Real tax reduction will come only when Americans are prepared to accept significant spending cuts, and that, in turn, depends upon our understanding the limited constitutional role our citizens imposed upon the federal government.
government
The Year Ahead
03 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
I am convinced that the best way for us to reestablish a limited federal government is by restoring the spirit of our founding fathers. These brave men well understood that concentration and centralization of power leads to tyranny and despotism. For this reason we must do two things. First, we must recall that our nation was founded on the principle that the government that governs closest to home is the government best equipped to deal with social ills. That means powers of state and local governments must once again be given their proper respect. Next, we must make certain to restore the proper separation of powers in Washington. The 535 voting Members of both Houses of Congress must reassert their authority as opposed to that of the nine men and women who sit in black robes, or a Presidency that increasingly displays its arrogance by usurping power. By reestablishing this division of powers, we can once again check intrusive government action. This is the agenda I will continue to advocate in the upcoming session of Congress.
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
The media blames Y2K scaremongers and alarmists for the concern for a computer-driven crisis. But for several months, official government announcements urging citizens to prepare for Y2K with extra cash and extra home provisions played a part in the fear that some Americans felt. These warnings for the most part were sincere, but there was obviously some ignorance by most of the "experts" on what would really happen.
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Private computers were corrected beyond expectations, because many people did not understand or underestimated the free market's ability to adjust. The final word has not yet been heard on government computers. It may be that weeks or even months may be required to find out where the real glitches are. Most government checks, scheduled for early January, were processed in December, which may have only delayed the problems if they still exist. Evidence that the IRS computers have been corrected to adjust for calculating interest and penalties are yet to come.
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
It is even possible that "infected" computers may gradually interfere with corrected computers. Only time will tell if we still have any significant problems. I'm certain that if indeed we get by with minimal computer disruptions, the credit will go to the private programmers and non-government entities that knew it was in their best interest to appropriately deal with the problem.
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
But government bureaucrats never miss a chance to emphasize their importance. If indeed, the problem was not severe as it appears, it's interesting to note the high visibility in the past months of Y2K Czar, John Koskinen. He now seeks credit for saving the country from chaos. The government Information Coordination Center headed up by Koskinen and his consultants is already looking for another dragon to slay. They are now working to make the Center permanent for the purpose of monitoring any possible technological crisis in the future. The experts at the Center believe the World Wide Web needs closer monitoring. Koskinen concerns are: "information security, whether it's from viruses, hackers, cyber-terrorists, or others, and our ability to share information is critical."
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
This type of government surveillance bothers me and could be the vehicle for getting the government "leg" in the door to gain more control over the Internet. The Internet tax is a big issue and won't go away. When government bureaucrats talk of security, they mean theirs - not ours. And I'm sure that "national security interests" will always be used as an excuse for government to have more control over the Internet. Other arguments that will be used will include the need to assist federal law enforcement efforts in fighting drugs, tax dodgers, dead-beat dads, pornography, and child molesters, etc.
government
The New Year
10 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
The question the American people must answer is how much liberty they are willing to sacrifice in order to allow the federal government to pursue goals that were once the domain of state and local law enforcement agencies.
government
Parental Control Key to Education Reform
24 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Federally mandating teacher testing would inevitably lead to national testing as Washington-based politicians and bureaucrats would demand that state and local governments conform to their national specifications. National testing means a national curriculum. Since teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test, new teachers will base their lesson plans on what they need to know in order to pass the Education Department-approved test.
government
Parental Control Key to Education Reform
24 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
In order to stop the Federal Government from seizing complete control over the teaching profession, last year I introduced legislation, HR 1706, which prohibits such national testing and certification. The bill passed the House of Representatives in July, but has yet to be voted on in the Senate. Last month, along with 14 of my colleagues, I sent a letter to Senate Education Committee Chairman James Jeffords (R-VT) asking that the ban on national testing be included in the Senate version of the legislation.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
On November 3rd, 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed medical privacy regulations in the Federal Register. Protecting medical privacy is a noble goal; however, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to mandate a uniform standard of privacy protections for every citizen. Rather, individuals and those with whom they entrust their health care information should determine the question of who should have access to a person's medical records. Real threats to privacy come primarily from governments that have historically compelled individuals to provide information, often in exchange for some government benefit.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The regulations also give the federal government power to punish those who violate these standards. Thus, in a remarkable example of government paternalism, individuals are forced to rely on the good graces of government bureaucrats for protection of their medical privacy. These so-called "privacy protection" regulations not only strip individuals of any ability to determine for themselves how best to protect their medical privacy, they also create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. For example, medical researchers may access people’s private medical records even if individuals do not want this.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Allowing law enforcement officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s "papers."
government
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Finally, I object to the fact that these proposed regulations "permit" health care providers (already beholden to government by funding) to give medical records to the government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened
07 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
Before implementing these rules, HHS must consider what will happen to the trust between patients and physicians when patients know that any and all information given their doctor may be placed in a government database, seen by medical researchers, or handed over to government agents without a warrant. For more information on how to submit comments to the Department of Health and Human Services, feel free to contact my congressional staff by email at rep.paul@mail.house.gov. Please use the words "HHS Regs" in the subject line, and make sure to include your email address in your message. You may also contact my office by phone at 202-225-2831.
government
Keeping Promises about Social Security
14 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 February 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
That is why I was heartened when recently, the independent, nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation praised me as one of only seven members of the House of Representatives who voted not to spend one penny of the Social Security trust fund on other government programs last year. Right now nearly every politician is claiming to have saved Social Security, but according to this independent group, only seven Members Congress actually voted that way last year. Yes, this is exactly why I can sometimes vote with only a handful of others, because I pledged to not spend Social Security trust fund dollars on other programs. While many people in Washington say they agree, this non-partisan organization says only a handful really vote that way.
government
Keeping Promises about Social Security
14 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 February 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Each year the President and Congress take the money Americans pay into Social Security and use it for purposes other than paying pensions. Simply, they are stealing from our senior citizens. The Social Security Preservation Act will restore Americans' faith in their retirement. It should be illegal for the government to use the trust fund for any purpose except administering the Social Security system.
government
Repeal Earnings Limitation
21 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
During a time when an increasing number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the federal government does just that through Social Security "earnings limitations." Earnings limitations deduct a portion of seniors' monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set limit. By providing a disincentive for seniors to remain in the workplace, this restriction damages the economy and punishes individuals for seeking gainful employment. It is simply un-American that the federal government would punish someone for continuing to contribute to the economy by reducing benefits that person has already paid for and been promised by Congress.
government
Repeal Earnings Limitation
21 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
When the government takes money every month from people's paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to work.
government
Repeal Earnings Limitation
21 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Furthermore, by providing a disincentive to remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.
government
Repeal Earnings Limitation
21 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
I will continue to promote legislation designed to protect the Social Security trust fund from big-spending politicians and eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. Of course, I will also continue to fight to repeal the earnings limitation and ensure that senior citizens will have the option of continuing to work after retirement age without being penalized by an overly burdensome federal government.
government
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Organized crime in Russia is a well-known problem. One of the arguments used for not sending IMF funds to Russia was the pervasive corruption throughout their government. As quickly as the funds were appropriated, they were laundered through New York banks and off to a numbered Swiss account - probably with very little actually ever passing through to Moscow. But the proponents of aid won't give up; our tax dollars, they argue, are vital for the successful transition from totalitarianism to democracy. What is generally forgotten is that the process of taking funds from someone who earned them is every bit as morally reprehensible as the corruption that results when sent hither and yon around the world.
government
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
If our government and political leaders had any "intelligence" this plan would be squelched. It can lead to no good and in all probability will backfire. What do we do if the FBI office is bombed and Americans are killed? We have no business there, and this is a dangerous precedent to set.
government
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Even if the current Hungarian government has given our justice department the go-ahead to open this office, we can be certain some Hungarian citizens will strongly resent it. Those who believe in Hungarian sovereignty will respond with hatred toward Americans just as is happening on a daily basis in Iraq over our routine bombing of that country and the stoning of our troops stationed in Kosovo.
government
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Our FBI agents will carry guns and be permitted to make arrests. The Hungarian government will have no say about the employees who work in the office. Can one imagine what the reaction would be in the United States if a foreign country wanted to do the same thing here? The FBI is anxious to make this mission a success because they want to set up similar offices in the Baltic States, Nigeria, and South Africa. This is a foolhardy adventure and a recipe for disaster. The procedures for sharing information and coordinating police activities in dealing with international criminals has been used for a long time, but this bold move is sure to offend many. And when some accident occurs it will lead to an unnecessary international crisis.
government
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 12 ... Cached
Unfortunately, this bold move of an overseas FBI office will go unnoticed in Washington DC, and the politicians will not address the subject until a major crisis erupts. A constitutional approach to government would preclude this type of international adventurism. The president should have never ordered this project. And Congress, if it cared and assumed its responsibilities, would quickly de-fund it. The quicker the better.
government
The Big Lie
13 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, Steele points out that the stories about Kosovo came not only from NATO officers but also from officials of the United Nations as well as from our own government. However, a few sources closely followed developments and seemed to get the story about right. Pablo Ordaz of El Pais magazine, Audrey Gillan of the London Review of Books and even two members of an inspection team sent to Kosovo for the purpose of investigating purported mass graves all challenged the stories of the propaganda machine.
government
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.
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
If things are so good why do these worshippers of the so-called "new economy" press for items such as raises in the federal minimum wage? Recently the House voted to increase the government-mandated wage rate. This occurred as a result of much prodding by the Clinton-Gore administration.
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
The fact that government creates money out of thin air must be addressed, because it is the entire reason why costs of living increase and standards of living decline. In a market economy prices tend to gently fall as a result of the increased efficiencies brought about by competition. If the average person paid half as much for his or her home and half as much for his or her car, would we not be better off than we are with these paltry government-mandated wage increases?
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
Again, there is only one reason why prices are rising instead of falling. Because the government, through its credit-creation mechanism, is engaged in a sort of price controls, it is in fact following a policy that eventuates in price inflation as well as recession. Plus, this credit creation is at the heart of recent instability in the markets, thus threatening retirement security.
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 12 ... Cached
Add to these price controls a federal minimum wage, and our policy now resembles full out wage-and-price controls. Indeed, those who may celebrate the recent wage hike should remember that the same principle that permits the federal government to set higher wages is the very principle which has been used in the past, and will likely again be used in the future, to cap wages. Federal wage-setting power assumes the government has authority to set a maximum wage, as well as a minimum. Richard Nixon did it, and another President may well attempt this in the future if he is charged with creating run-away inflation.
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 13 ... Cached
I also mentioned taxes, and I'd like to briefly look at that as well. Our tax burden is at its highest peacetime levels. This means wage earners are being squeezed by the cost of government as well as the cost of living. Had Congress not stopped the Clinton-Gore tax on BTU's, (which they called an economic stimulus package), fuel prices would be significantly higher than they are right now. This points to why government is not the answer.
government
Answering the Middle Class Squeeze
27 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2000 verse 14 ... Cached
Increases in costs of living are a real problem, especially for those at the lower end of the wage scale. Those costs will continue to rise if we allow central planning to continue, but the solution to central planning is freedom, not grant further control over wages to government.
government
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This week, Vice President Gore announced his plan to establish a new government-controlled endowment that would fund candidates who seek positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. It was only a matter of time before those who had been seeking to restrict free elections would propose a total government takeover of campaigns. Vice President Gore has done just that.
government
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
I have long advocated sweeping changes that would open up elections here. I have suggested that federal spending limits be abolished, and that presidential debates be opened. I have also worked for years to make ballot access easier to attain. The problem with elections is not that there is too much money involved, but rather that choices are restricted by government policies crafted by incumbents who want to be protected from competition.
government
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
I believe in competition, in the economic marketplace, and in the marketplace of ideas also. For political purposes, the marketplace is an election and that marketplace ought to be free from federal interference and government restrictions. Our founding fathers gave no power over political campaigns to any federal bureaucracy. Indeed, they would have recoiled at the very notion. But in the current "anything goes" Clinton-Gore administration there is no barrier against what will be proposed by those who seek to maintain political power.
government
Electoral Follies
03 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 April 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
First, we must realize that a new board would be empowered to govern this endowment. The board would undoubtedly be populated by political patronage appointees, but aside from that we should ask where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is given authority to provide for such a board. The short answer is that no such authority exists, and only tinkering with our Constitution at the expense of the bill of rights can in fact create it. Moreover, this money would almost certainly be apportioned among certain favored political parties. Would so-called minor party candidates be funded? Would incumbents receive more of this taxpayer funding than challengers? Would candidates be funded in primaries? Who would decide all of these things?
government
Classroom Excellence Depends on Quality Teachers
10 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
The federal government cannot and should not be responsible for assuring that the best teachers control classrooms. However we certainly can change federal policy to make it easier for local schools to get the best teachers possible. Last week Governor Bush announced a battery of education proposals that I, as a member of the Education Committee, will likely have to review.
government
Classroom Excellence Depends on Quality Teachers
10 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
The federal government has stood in the way of true teacher authority for far too long. By imposing regulations making it difficult for teachers and school districts to remove violent and unruly children, Washington has put handcuffs on teachers at great expense to local public education.
government
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 1 ... Cached
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
government
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
My other criticism is that these groups really tend to focus on minor side issues and never really address the principle upon which their argument depends. In short, the problem with the alphabet-soup of international financial organizations is not the policy of the current group administering these programs. Rather, the real issue is that these organizations threaten the very idea of self-government and self-determination. We do not need to change the policies these institutions are following. We need to shut down the entire international monetary apparatus and end the international welfare state.
government
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
The World Bank and IMF are not merely a significant drain on U.S. taxpayers and a threat to self-government. They also use the leverage that they purchase with our tax dollars, as a means to force less developed countries to take on new and harmful fiscal, monetary and economic regulations. This serves to leave these countries further impoverished.
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
When I see President Clinton suggesting he is going to protect the privacy rights of Americans I start to feel like the fella in the example just cited. Do I really trust Bill Clinton, or any U.S. President, to protect my privacy? Would the founding fathers accept the notion that the federal government is supposed to protect our privacy? Did they authorize that in the constitution?
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Now President Clinton says he wants to protect your privacy. Has he had a change of heart? Is he now prepared to take steps to make sure the federal government will no longer engage in the kinds of activities it has undertaken on his watch? Hardly!
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Whenever this President talks about privacy protection he always means giving the federal government more power. What he wishes to restrict are private sector actions involving companies selling names or information. Certainly we should not be subject to the sale of our private information against our will. But there are existing methods to prevent such a thing from happening. Through the freedom to contract and the power of state laws such activities can be curtailed.
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
When it comes to our privacy rights however, we need to understand the idea from the view of those who ensconced our rights in a constitution. Our founding fathers understood privacy rights are held by individuals and ought not to be violated by the federal government. Mr. Clinton's attempts are to turn the thoughts of the founders upside down. He would have us believe that privacy rights are protected by federal intervention into the information economy. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be more contrary to the ideas of liberty.
government
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
If we really want to advance privacy we need to make sure our federal government has fewer records rather than giving it more power to create more lists and police more communications in the name of privacy protection. Let's look at the issue of identity theft as an example. What few realize is that the single greatest contributing factor to identity theft is the government-mandated Social Security number. Successful identity-thieves routinely rely on the Social Security number as the "key" to unlock the records of their victims. Just as the burglar uses a crow bar to open windows, the chief tool of the identity thief is the Social Security number.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Last week the Ways and Means Committee held hearings regarding use of the Social Security number. The fact that the Social Security number has become a unique identifier has strongly contributed to the efforts of those who invade the privacy rights of citizens. From government snoops at the IRS to identity-thieves, those who would invade privacy have found the Social Security number to be a key weapon to allow them to commit their criminal actions.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
This week the Government Reform and Oversight Committee met to consider potential solutions to privacy problems. Featured in this legislative hearing was my bill, HR 220. As I had done the week before, I was called to testify before the government reform committee. In so doing, I again stressed the importance of ending the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
When Social Security was put into place a couple of very clear promises were made to the American people. One of the promises made was that the funds going into the Social Security trust fund would not be used to run the laundry list of government programs and the alphabet soup listing of government agencies. What we were told is that those dollars would be used only to run a public pension system.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The other thing we were told was that the Social Security number would not become a form of national identifier, and that the use of the number would be limited to purposes essential to the management of the public pension program. The government misled us on both counts.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Ever since Vietnam, the government has been sucking dollars out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for government programs, including foreign adventurism. Whenever we vote to spend more money in Bosnia or Kosovo or Colombia, we are tapping funds that could be used to repay the Social Security trust fund for years of unrelated expenses. This spending must stop.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Right now Congress is considering two very different solutions to the privacy problems that have arisen as the result of these extraneous uses of the Social Security number. My solution remains to strictly limit the government. This Congress I introduced two bills the very first day we met. HR 219 stops the government from using Social Security monies for other government programs and HR 220 stops the use of the Social Security number as a unique identifier.
government
Privacy Takes Center Stage
22 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
It will probably not surprise anybody to learn that there are a number of people in Congress who are actually suggesting that the best way to protect privacy is to make the government bigger and stronger. These people argue that the government should further regulate the information economy in an attempt to advance privacy. Any person familiar with the concept of negative and positive rights, and any student of history, will immediately realize the follies of trying to secure privacy rights by increasing government authority.
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
New Government Programs Approved By House
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This week changes to the bill on trade relations with China meant that I had to vote against the legislation. I have consistently voted for normal trade relations with China, but here we have a situation where the House leadership gave in to the liberal Democrat demand for more government. I could not support that.
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The people who elected us have criticized this Congress. Time and again I have heard it said that we are not doing the job we have been elected to do. We have given in to President Clinton and the liberal minority in the House. Enough is enough. These last minute changes left us a PNTR bill that created a new government commission and put taxpayers on the line for millions in so-called "technical aid" to Communist China. Apparently the administration believed left-wing members of Congress could be convinced to vote for freer trade and freer markets just so long as we give more foreign aid to our Communist Chinese adversaries.
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Managed trade features of the legislation also disappointed me. It is tiresome to hear over and over about free trade from the very people who are trying to cut off free trade. For example, this last minute language included so called anti-surge protections. How in the world can any serious person suggest this is free trade? The changes made to appease the liberals made this bill the very opposite of what it had been purported to be. As so often happens with large bills in Washington, PNTR became a vehicle for big government, managed trade, foreign aid giveaways and the creation of new government commissions. I could have supported a clean bill that simply meant lower tariffs, but this bill, and the means by which these changes were brought about, cried out for rejection of the legislation and the entire process.
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Another example that shows what happened to the contents of this so called free trade bill is seen in the provision putting American taxpayers on the hook for nearly $100 million dollars in new spending for radio broadcasts aimed not just at China but other Asian countries. So much for our commitment not to spend Social Security surpluses on other government programs.
government
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
Free trade is about free markets, which means limiting government interference in the marketplace. We face high hurdles for the philosophy of less government in the foreseeable future because the Congressional trade debate is now limited to the voices of outright protectionists and those who, in the name of free trade, promote a regime of managed trade which threatens the sovereignty upon which our fundamental liberties will always depend.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
When the House of Representatives recently passed the "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", better known as CARA, it took a big step in the wrong direction. This legislation allows the federal government to get further involved in the real estate business by owning more property.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
I believe the federal government should be selling off many of its real property holdings. Efficient land use, as well as constitutional government, would suggest the federal government already owns far too much real property.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Still, some of the most radical environmentalists remain convinced that the only way to protect green space is for government, particularly the federal government, to own more and more land. This is an ironic point of view, because countries that have had the most government regulation of property, such as the former Soviet bloc nations, have had the absolute worst records of environmental quality.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
These funds are being separately dedicated and taken off budget so Congress will not have to do annual appropriations with them. This scheme is bad for two reasons. First, it allows the Executive Branch to have powers that are Constitutionally directed to Congress. So this bill not only diminishes private property, it also erodes the Constitutional separation of powers. Furthermore, this off-budget scheme will not amount to anything approaching a true trust fund. Time and again, we have seen government raid trust funds to pay for spending measures for which those funds were never intended. The most glaring example of this is the raiding of the Social Security trust fund. However, highway funds, airport funds and others are also regularly raided to pay for foreign aid giveaways and other pork.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
CARA not only necessitates the creation of a trust fund to engage in activities which are not authorized by the Constitution, it also promises to have a negative impact on property rights in general and on the environment Congress is claiming to protect. If we are truly interested in providing better land management and environmental stewardship, we should get the federal government out of the land management business. As the recent uncontrolled burns of Los Alamos show, there is literally no end to the possible ways the federal government can mismanage environmentally sensitive lands.
government
CARA: Environmental Protection or Destruction?
05 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
I have introduced legislation to take a project in my district out of federal hands and place it with agencies in Texas. Of course, the executive branch has stalled it every step of the way. When the federal government begins to micro-manage affairs that belong at the state and local levels, it is nearly impossible to stop. Unfortunately, this CARA bill will give federal agencies much more control over real property. Once people see the folly of this bill, it will be too late because the federal bureaucracy will be in control. Now I can only hope that my colleagues in the Senate will stop this terrible legislation from becoming law.
government
Repeal of Un-American "Death Tax" Passes House
12 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
On Friday, the House of Representatives cast a historic vote and repealed the immoral estate tax, better known as the "death tax." Of all the outrageous taxes Americans are forced to pay each year, the death tax is the most outrageous of them all. It amounts to government confiscation of American citizens' property when they die, instead of allowing them to pass a legacy on to their families.
government
Repeal of Un-American "Death Tax" Passes House
12 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The death tax confiscates anywhere from 37%-55% of a person's estate when he or she dies. That is not only the highest tax rate in the tax code. It is also double taxation, a tax on already taxed items. People pay federal, state, and local taxes out of their paychecks for their entire lives. What estate is built then gets taxed at their death, and their family is forced to pay the federal government again.
government
Repeal of Un-American "Death Tax" Passes House
12 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
There are some who argue the government would lose too much revenue if the death tax were repealed. First, I object to the notion that money collected from the death tax is, in fact, the government's money to lose. The money belongs to American citizens who worked hard to earn it. And another thing that jumps out at me is the inefficiency of government with regard to collecting this tax. Three years ago, the death tax raised $20 billion in government revenue. However, the cost to government of actually collecting the money, combined with the cost of compliance, amounts to $12 billion. That means the $20 billion collected by the IRS actually required a $32 drain on the economy. On the other hand, repealing the tax would cost the government $20 billion, but it would inject $32 billion into the economy.
government
Repeal of Un-American "Death Tax" Passes House
12 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
In a word, the death tax is simply un-American. People should not be punished for working hard their entire lives, creating jobs and wealth for others, and then trying to leave some of it so their children can have better lives. I applaud the members of the House who had the courage to cast the historic vote today to repeal the death tax. Now, I call on the members of the Senate and the President to support this legislation. The time has come to create a government that is supportive, not oppressive to the small business owner and the family farmer. If we put our faith in the American people, instead of the government, we will increase individual savings, promote job creation and, most importantly, support the family structure.
government
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a "uniform standard health identifier" on the American people. This legislation will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being filed away. It restores and protects the fundamental privacy and due process rights that are the foundation of our system of government.
government
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
As a doctor, I know how crucial it is to insure people's privacy when speaking to their physicians. Unless Congress permanently forbids the development of a medical ID, Americans may not be able to talk to their doctors about matters that are of an utmost private nature without fear of having this information accessed by government agencies! As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. What happens to that trust when patients know any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a database accessible by anyone who knows the patient's 'unique personal identifier?
government
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
"Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.
government
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
No private organization has the power to abuse personal liberty on a massive scale as can the federal government. After all, consumers have the right to refuse to do business with any private entity that asks for a Social Security number, whereas citizens cannot lawfully refuse to deal with many government agencies. Furthermore, most of the major invasions of privacy, from the abuse of IRS files to the abuse of the FBI by administrations of both parties, have occurred by government agents. I can only imagine the havoc they could wreak if they were allowed to access an individual's medical records.
government
A Big Win for Medical Privacy in Congress
19 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
I am very pleased that my amendment to the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill passed the House. American citizens have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. It is the only way to guarantee that medical IDs do not become a reality. By listening to the American people, we have terminated the uniform standard health identifier. This is a great victory for privacy rights. We have finally taken a stand against federal bureaucrats invading our privacy and recording every detail of our lives.
government
EPA Regulations Threaten Texas
26 June 2000 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
The people of the 14th District are directly affected by EPA actions. Areas in Brazoria and Victoria counties face possible "non-attainment" designation and the resulting loss of transportation funds. Local governments and agriculture face another key battle with the EPA over "non-point source" pollution standards, which could force farmers to obtain federal permits and have "waste management plans" approved by regulators. The threat to the local economy is obvious, as the costs of complying with onerous regulations will send business and jobs elsewhere. While air and water quality standards are a legitimate concern, the state of Texas should make its own decisions without oversight from Washington.
government
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Tuesday evening, House lawmakers reached a compromise agreement that will permit U.S. exports of food and medicine to Cuba for the first time in nearly 40 years. This partial repeal of the trade embargo was proposed by Representative George Nethercutt of Washington State,who has joined me in working to open trade with Cuba. The agreement allows U.S. businesses to sell food or medicine to Cuba, while prohibiting the federal government from financing or otherwise subsidizing such sales. The agreement also prohibits the President from imposing further restrictions on food or medicine sales to other countries without congressional approval. I applaud this compromise as a good step in the direction of true free trade- it allows more trade, while prohibiting government subsidization of trade.
government
True Free Trade Benefits Texas Farmers
03 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
"Nevertheless, the Nethercutt agreement is beneficial, but not perfect. I introduced a more comprehensive bill in March 1999 (H.R. 1181). My bill would have removed trade restrictions with Cuba completely, so that all types of U.S. products could be exported. In addition, my bill prohibited any federal assistance or taxpayer subsidies to Cuba. Also, I would allow American banks to finance sales to Cuba (or any other nation), so that Texas farmers would not have to seek financing from foreign banks. My bill would have created true free trade with Cuba, with no restrictions and no subsidies by the federal government. Still, the current agreement represents an endorsement of many of the principles contained in my bill, and I support it accordingly.
government
Last-Minute Supplemental Spending is Dangerous and Unnecessary
10 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Worse yet, much of the spending contained in the supplemental bill goes overseas. Several South American countries, including Colombia, Bolivia, and Ecuador receive a total of $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars. Colombia alone receives approximately half a billion dollars for costly helicopters and U.S. training of its police and military forces in "counternarcotics" activities. I find this a particularly dangerous and expensive proposition. Our nation should not be spending billions of dollars and sending 60 military helicopters to the Colombian Army and National Police to escalate our failed drug war. We risk another Nicaragua when we meddle in the internal politics and military activities of a foreign nation. Sending expensive helicopters to Colombia is the worst kind of pork-barrel politics- helicopters are ineffective weapons of war, as we have seen in Vietnam and Somalia. The American people are tired of paying their tax dollars to fund expensive toys for foreign governments. Taxpayers should demand that Congress demonstrate the national interest served before it sends billions to foreign nations.
government
High Taxes Cause High Gas Prices
17 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Consumers throughout the 14th district of Texas and Americans everywhere have felt the impact of higher gasoline prices during the past year. In response, our government officials have offered up the usual "solution": greater regulation of the oil industry. Administration officials have ordered an FTC antitrust probe, while vote-seeking politicians have condemned the oil industry and called for an investigation into collusion and price gouging. The truth is that costly federal taxes and regulations largely are to blame for high fuel prices, not convenient scapegoats like OPEC and the oil companies. I co-sponsored legislation in March that would immediately address the real problem: exorbitant gas taxes.
government
High Taxes Cause High Gas Prices
17 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 July 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
The obvious way to reduce the price that consumers pay for gasoline is to reduce fuel taxes. Federal taxes account for nearly 20 cents per gallon of gasoline sold. State and local taxes bring the total to 42 cents per gallon. Thus, while the cost of crude oil is roughly 70 cents per gallon (based on the current cost of $30 per barrel for OPEC crude oil), the "cost of politicians" is 42 cents! In fact, over 43 different taxes are imposed on the production and distribution of gasoline by various levels of government. The pre-tax price of a gallon of gasoline barely has changed in the last decade, hovering around 88 cents throughout the 1990s. The real increase has been in various taxes: in 1990 consumers spent only 27 cents per gallon in taxes (as opposed to 42 cents today). At the same time, EPA regulations (such as those requiring new reformulated gasoline) add significantly to the cost of fuel production. Analysts estimate consumers would save a whopping $67 billion in one year if gas taxes were eliminated. Clearly, we need to end the smokescreen and stop blaming oil companies for high prices that have been caused almost entirely by huge increases in fuel taxes.
government
Lower Taxes Encourage Saving for Retirement
24 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This week the House of Representatives voted to support H.R. 1102, the "Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform" bill. The bill increases the deductible amounts individuals may contribute to their IRAs, while also increasing tax-deferred amounts that may be contributed to 401(k) pension plans. While I certainly supported the bill based on its tax relief, I also applaud the underlying principle of encouraging private retirement saving by allowing individuals to keep more of their paychecks. American taxpayers know that the best way for them to save for their retirement is to invest their pre-tax dollars in private pensions and retirement accounts. Taxpayers, rather than the federal government, should be the stewards of their own hard-earned retirement savings.
government
Lower Taxes Encourage Saving for Retirement
24 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Our tax laws generally discourage private saving. H.R. 1102, like my pension reform proposals, focuses on increasing saving by increasing the tax deductions and tax deferrals available to individuals. We can encourage retirement saving simply by allowing employees to put more of their paychecks into IRAs and pension funds, instead of sending taxes to the federal government. More than ever, Americans know that their own private retirement savings will be critical to their standard of living during their later years.
government
The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
31 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
The American public gradually has become aware of the disturbing trend toward federal policing of our nation. Many Americans do not support ATF, especially after the disastrous events at Waco. I was widely attacked in the media and by members of Congress for questioning the government's actions at Waco, and for merely suggesting that many Americans were concerned by the possibility of federal agents taking violent action against American citizens. Now we have Congress spending more money to increase the budget for ATF, despite its highly questionable actions and the resulting public mistrust of the agency.
government
The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police
31 July 2000 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Washington politicians have successfully used recent excessive-force allegations against local police to further their goals. It is convenient to portray local police as violent or racist, and therefore in need of federal oversight and restraint. The question, however, is whether we should trust a federal police force more than we trust our own local authorities. I believe there is a growing recognition that our founding fathers were correct when they prohibited federal government involvement in law enforcement. In Waco, Americans had a vivid example of the impact of the growing police state. With the veneer being stripped from the myth of federal law enforcement, our citizens are beginning to realize that it is both unconstitutional and untenable.
government
Long and Short Term Solutions to the Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs
07 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress recently has considered different ways to help seniors struggling to pay their prescription drug bills. Unfortunately, nearly every proposal that comes out of Washington involves a new federal program that continues taxing Social Security benefits and misusing the Social Security trust fund, or attempts to lower costs through price-fixing measures which will result in rationing of drugs. Other proposals create government subsidies to insurance or pharmaceutical companies. These plans take control of health care away from the individual and place it in the hands of bureaucrats.
government
Long and Short Term Solutions to the Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs
07 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
This is why I introduced the "Pharmaceutical Freedom Act" (HR 3636). This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, will have access to affordable prescription drugs. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing government imposed cost increases and providing seniors a prescription drug tax credit.
government
Long and Short Term Solutions to the Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs
07 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
My bill also removes needless government barriers to the availability of pharmaceuticals. The key to controlling drug costs is to promote competition, with choices for consumers. However, FDA regulations make it nearly impossible for American consumers to obtain many medicines they need. My bill places the burden on the FDA to demonstrate why an individual should not be permitted to choose prescription drugs for personal use, thereby freeing American consumers to enjoy the benefits of price competition.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
From time to time, some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans so it can operate more efficiently. While I do not doubt their good intentions, I would remind them that in the United States, the people should never be asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government a little easier. The government is here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to invade their privacy in the name of efficient government.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
With that in mind, I have introduced two key pieces of legislation aimed at curtailing governmental privacy invasions. The first is the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act" (HR 220). This bill forbids federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for purposes not directly related to administering the Social Security system. When Social Security was introduced, the American people were told that their number would never become a form of national identifier. In fact, until the 1970’s all Social Security cards stated on the back that the card was not an ID card. Unfortunately, cards issued today do not contain that same phrase, and Congress has been all too eager to expand the use of Social Security numbers.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
For example, in 1998 over 200 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote. Also, day-to-day private business dealings are becoming increasingly difficult without a Social Security number. You cannot open a bank account, get married, or even obtain a fishing license without disclosing your Social Security number. My bill will restore privacy to Americans who currently are being abused by overreaching government.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
I introduced this legislation after scores of calls to my office during the recent census process from constituents who thought the long forms were too intrusive. There is no reason why the federal government needs to know how much money you make or how many bathrooms you have in your home. This information is personal and private, and I am committed to restoring to Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being recorded.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
On a more positive note, privacy advocates scored a major victory this summer when the House passed an amendment I proposed to an appropriations bill that will prohibit the federal government from imposing a uniform standard health identifier on the American people. As a doctor, I know how important it is to insure patient confidentiality, and I am very pleased my colleagues supported the amendment. It is the only way to guarantee that national medical ID’s do not become a reality.
government
Right to Privacy Too Often Overlooked
14 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The other major privacy victory recently was when the federal government withdrew proposed Know Your Customer regulations which would have forced banks to report practically every customer transaction to the government. I was proud to lead the effort on the Banking Committee to stop this invasion of privacy with my "Bank Secrecy Sunset Act" (HR 518), would have overturned any such regulations. Fortunately, the proposal was withdrawn before the legislation was needed, but I believe this will be an ongoing battle. Those advocating more intrusion by the government will continue their legislative efforts, and we must stand ready to face that constant threat.
government
Help for Those with Terminal Illnesses
21 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
This year we have heard proposals by various people in Washington advocating more government control over our health care system. These proposals almost invariably call for more tax dollars to be sent to Washington, so bureaucrats can make decisions about your medical care rather than having you choose. The approach is almost always the same- send your money to Washington, where bureaucrats decide what to do with your dollars. I advocate a different approach, however. I believe my constituents (and all Americans) should keep more of their own paychecks, leaving them with greater money and choices when addressing their own health care concerns.
government
Reforming Social Security to Protect Present and Future Senior Citizens
28 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Unfortunately, Washington politicians have not hesitated to spend Social Security funds for other purposes over the years. It is important to remember that the system originally was designed as a forced retirement savings program. Social Security monies were to be set aside in a separate trust fund used only for the payment of benefits. Revenue-hungry politicians, however, have needed to pay for more and more government programs over the past decades. The result is that the Social Security trust fund has been violated: Social Security "surpluses" have been spent on a myriad of federal programs. When the government spends Social Security funds elsewhere, it must rely on new payroll taxes to meet its current Social Security obligations. This means those payroll taxes are never set aside at all, but rather used to pay current benefits. The resulting conflict between generations is the inevitable result of the shameful and reckless policy of spending Social Security trust funds for purposes other than the payment of benefits.
government
Local Control is the Key to Education Reform
04 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Education reform is of critical importance in America today. Over the past decades, we have witnessed two undeniable trends in our education system. First, the role of the federal government has steadily increased. Second, the quality of our nation's public schools has steadily decreased. These unfortunate developments compel me (and millions of parents across the country) to question our approach, to ask hard questions about the obvious failure of many public schools to provide children with a quality education. Why, given 70 years of ever-increasing federal spending, has government failed to create the wonderful public school system promised us by Great Society politicians? Why do we spend far more per student today than in the past, with far worse results? Why, despite the increases in federal spending, are public school teachers still underpaid (with the brightest young people refusing to enter the profession)? Finally, why have we allowed the federal government to consistently expand its control over our local school systems?
government
Local Control is the Key to Education Reform
04 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
These questions all point to an inescapable conclusion: the federal government is not the answer. The key to fixing our education system is to reduce the role of the federal government and expand local and parental control of schools. Funding decisions increasingly have been controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, causing public and even some private schools to follow the dictates of these federal "educrats" to an ever-greater degree to preserve their funding. As a result, curricula, teacher standards, textbook selection, and discipline policies have been crafted in Washington. Rigorous classes in basics such as mathematics, grammar, science, Western civilization, and history have been reduced or eliminated, while politically favored subjects have been forced upon students. Religious observation and prayer, although widely practiced and supported by the majority of Americans, have been forbidden to students under perverse interpretations of the First amendment by federal courts. Worst of all, the values and concerns of local parents have been ignored.
government
The Danger of Military Foreign Aid to Colombia
11 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 11 September 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Fortunately, however, many Americans agree that military aid for Colombia is a bad idea. "Plan Colombia" has received harsh criticism from members of Congress, while various human rights activists have condemned the President's visit. Normally, the government of a country must meet certain humanitarian standards to qualify for U.S. foreign aid. Although Colombia does not meet such standards, the administration and Congress chose to waive the requirements on "national security" grounds. As Robert White, former ambassador to El Salvador, stated: "There is a very great danger that this kind of thing can increase little by little, and all of a sudden you will be in far more deeply than you ever wished to be. This could aggravate and prolong the three-decade old Colombian civil war."
government
Congress Must Work for Seniors
18 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 September 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Next, Congress must work to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Many seniors, especially those on fixed incomes, are unable to afford the expensive medications they need every month. Unfortunately, nearly every proposal coming out of Washington attempts to lower drug costs through price-fixing (which inevitably leads to rationing of drugs), or through subsidies to insurance or pharmaceutical companies. My legislation, the "Pharmaceutical Freedom Act," makes prescription drugs more affordable by providing seniors with a tax credit for drug expenses so they can spend their resources on needed medications. Also, my legislation eliminates needless government regulations and barriers to competition which drive up drug prices. Congress must remove bureaucratic regulations that prevent America’s seniors from enjoying lower prices available from Internet and foreign pharmacies. The key to lowering drug prices is to create a true, competitive free market for prescription drugs. Additionally, my legislation returns control of health care dollars to our seniors and their doctors, rather than federal bureaucrats.
government
Congress Must Work for Seniors
18 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 September 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Finally, Congress must support seniors by eliminating the death tax. Although this tax accounts for only a tiny portion of federal revenues (about 1.5%), it has a devastating impact on many seniors and their families. When Congress ends the death tax, seniors no longer will worry about losing their farms, small businesses, and savings to the government.
government
Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction?
25 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
First and foremost, we cannot forget that our nation remains nearly $6 trillion in debt. This debt is the result of one very simple but enormous problem: over the years, Congress has spent more than the Treasury has collected in taxes. Note that Congress, rather than any particular administration, is responsible for creating this debt. Congress alone determines how much is spent when it passes appropriations bills each year. When Congress spends more than it has, it must (like any family or business) borrow money. Eventually we all pay for this fiscal irresponsibility, as more and more of the government's annual budget is spent on interest payments. Even worse, this debt has caused the Federal Reserve to authorize the printing of more and more money during past decades, creating price inflation and making your dollars worth less.
government
Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction?
25 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Accordingly, any surplus that exists must be understood as a surplus for the current budget year only. Politicians and the media have termed these funds a "budget surplus" or "government surplus." These terms are widely accepted, and the self-congratulatory debate in Congress centers around what the government ought to do with the money. The truth, however, is that these funds represent a tax surplus. The federal government did not create a surplus, nor did the congressional budget process create a surplus. No politician created the surplus. You created the surplus with your tax dollars. It is your money! I urge you not to permit Washington politicians to claim any credit for overcharging you on April 15th.
government
Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction?
25 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Obviously, taxpayers should decide what is done with any surplus funds. Rest assured many in Congress are eager to spend the surplus on a variety of wasteful federal programs. This is a golden opportunity for Congress, because it can go on a spending spree without raising taxes! I supported the "lockbox" legislation because it prevents any spending of surplus dollars, instead requiring that funds be applied to debt reduction (I also have introduced legislation that prevents non-surplus Social Security and Medicare trust funds from being spent on unrelated programs). Reduction of the national debt certainly is preferable to new spending. My preference, however, would be to return any surplus directly to taxpayers. American families are taxed far too much now, and they never should be required to overfund the government. A surplus refund check would be a step in the right direction. The most important point, however, is that Congress should not be permitted to find new ways to spend your surplus dollars.
government
Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction?
25 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The key to true budget reform is very simple: Congress must drastically reduce spending. A fiscally responsible federal government that adhered to limits set forth in the Constitution could easily operate on a dramatically smaller budget. Our government operated on a mere fraction of its current budget even when we were fighting the Korean War! Despite what you hear this fall, debt reduction and tax relief are not mutually exclusive. Government is far too large, and it performs far too many unconstitutional functions. A constitutionally proper limited government could function without debt and with much lower taxes.
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Federal Government Should Not Play the Stock Market with Your Retirement Funds
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Social Security, when instituted in the 1930's, represented a promise by the federal government to working Americans. In exchange for their participation in a retirement savings program (via payroll taxes), Americans would be guaranteed monthly payments when they retired. 65 years later, when the majority of America's families own stocks or mutual funds, it is easy for some to forget that many retired Americans continue to rely on a monthly Social Security check for all or most of their income. These Americans funded the system throughout their working lives, and they deserve to know that their retirement funds are secure- after all, it's their money. I believe Congress must work to insure that the federal government meets its promise to our seniors.
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Concerns over the future solvency of Social Security have prompted proposals for "privatizing" the system. Many proposals include plans to allow the federal government to put tax dollars into certain approved stock market investments.
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
However, I believe government-managed investment of Social Security funds poses undue risks for our nation's seniors. Although the stock market has done well in recent years, market investments never are completely safe (especially with the Federal Reserve's risky inflationary policies). Our nation's seniors could lose their benefits if the U.S. stock market (or markets worldwide) experience a severe downturn. Remember that Social Security payments were promised to our seniors, and they paid for them during their working lives. Congress cannot risk breaking the Social Security promise, because it cannot risk the well being of millions of our nation's seniors.
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Furthermore, government involvement in the private stock market would have dangerous consequences. Who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles were approved? Which politicians would you trust to create an investment portfolio with your taxes? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If the company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
government
"Privatization" of Social Security Poses Risks
02 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Such "privatization" of Social Security would not really be private at all. Private companies would become a "partner" of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to make up for dollars taken out of the Social Security trust fund. Political favoritism, rather than market efficiency, would determine what investments were made. Worst of all, our nation's seniors would be threatened with the loss of the benefits they already paid for.
government
Drug Re-Importation Will Lower Prescription Drug Costs
09 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Unfortunately, many prescription drug proposals coming out of Washington take a different approach and put drug decisions in the hands of federal bureaucrats. We are told that massive new federal expenditures are the answer to the drug cost problem. More taxes must be sent to all-knowing federal health bureaucrats, who will decide what drugs you need. Of course, proponents of the governmental approach won’t tell you that they want to lower drug costs through price-fixing schemes (which inevitably lead to the rationing of drugs) or through subsidies to insurance and pharmaceutical companies (which stifle price competition). Furthermore, bureaucrats won’t admit that the current regulatory regime is a major cause of high drug prices. They just want to expand it and limit your choices in the process.
government
Drug Re-Importation Will Lower Prescription Drug Costs
09 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The administration’s plan would grant the FDA new investigative powers to monitor online drug sales. The administration also wants to impose massive penalties on non-complying online pharmacies and increase the FDA budget for the hiring of more online snoops. As usual, the government’s approach to the problem is more government; in this case increased FDA regulations to bring all online pharmacies under federal control (even those which comply with existing state laws). Of course, contrary to conventional wisdom, the FDA is not an independent agency working to "protect" you. Instead, government regulators have worked hand-in-glove with powerful pharmaceutical industry interests for more than a century. Is it any wonder that the FDA and its lobbyist-influenced regulations have done nothing but drive up the price of prescription drugs?
government
Real Tax Reform Still Needed for Texas Families
16 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Washington politicians love to champion the "budget surplus," as though government created an economic windfall. The truth is quite different. The surplus simply represents an overpayment of your tax dollars. Of course once the government has your money, it characterizes any tax cutting proposals as "costing too much." "We can’t afford to spend the surplus," politicians tell us. This is nonsense, and I urge taxpayers in my district to reject the ludicrous notion that tax reduction will harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
government
Real Tax Reform Still Needed for Texas Families
16 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Tax reduction is my first priority as your Congressman. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. "Tax Freedom Day" (representing the portion of the year you work just to pay taxes) for the majority of Americans is around June 1st. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and June going to the government! Clearly, the status quo is not acceptable. Texas families cannot continue to work more and more simply to keep pace with their tax bill.
government
Real Tax Reform Still Needed for Texas Families
16 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
The income tax is the most burdensome of all taxes. Rates are far too high, and the forms are ridiculously complex. The IRS remains an uncontrolled bureaucracy of terror. Public opposition to the current structure has created support for flat tax and national sales tax proposals. My proposal is known as the "Liberty Amendment" (H.J.R 116). This bill would repeal the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax in 1913. It is important to remember that the U.S. government operated for more than 130 years without an income tax. Government revenues were generated by simple excise taxes. It is time to return to a simple, fair method of funding the federal government.
government
Real Tax Reform Still Needed for Texas Families
16 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
We also must eliminate the very harmful estate tax, and end the terrible practice of imposing a tax on families when a loved one dies. This tax penalizes thrift and savings, denying Americans the right to pass their property to their children. Despite the Washington rhetoric, the estate tax does not apply only to the rich. In fact, it forces the sale of many small family businesses when heirs cannot pay the estate tax bill. Worst of all, the estate tax is imposed on savings and capital that already have been taxed. The estate tax simply takes money away from families and puts it in the hands of the government. There is no moral or economic justification for estate taxes, and I co-sponsored legislation and voted twice to repeal the tax.
government
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
government
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
First and foremost, we must end the massive abuse of Social Security numbers by the government. The widespread proliferation of uses (and misuses) of the number is well known to all of us. One cannot open a bank account, get a job, get married, or even obtain a simple library card without disclosing one's number. Even worse, the IRS uses Social Security numbers as a taxpayer ID, and IRS regulations even force parents to get numbers for newborns to qualify for the dependency deduction. Increasingly, we are tracked from cradle to grave by our Social Security number, which now undeniably acts as a national ID. Every American should be alarmed by this terrible loss of privacy caused by a government that seeks to number and track its citizens.
government
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
I introduced the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act" (H.R.220) to immediately bring an end to governmental abuse of our Social Security numbers. This legislation simply prohibits the federal or state governments from using your Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the Social Security administration. Quite simply, your number is your private business, and this legislation is badly needed to restore promised confidentiality. The IRS should not know your private number, and certainly your local motor vehicles department has no business asking for it.
government
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
The administration and federal bureaucrats will continue to look for ways to increase government monitoring of citizens. Recently, the administration proposed and fought to enact legislation creating a "uniform standard health identifier," clearly as part of a larger plan to create a national medical system. As a physician and privacy advocate, I know how dangerous a federal medical ID would be. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship would be destroyed if the patient knew his or her medical problems would be entered into a federal database. The government has no business knowing your medical history. Virtually all Americans agree with me, because public support for my opposition to the medical ID proposal was overwhelming. Ultimately, the medical ID plan was eliminated by my amendment to a larger bill.
government
Government Poses the Greatest Threat to our Privacy
23 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2000 verse 11 ... Cached
The federal government should keep its promise and restrict its use of Social Security numbers. Above all, it should restore the confidentiality of your private number, so that we might prevent identity theft crimes in the future. In the meantime, next time the government asks for your Social Security number, question the request and voice your objection.
government
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade.
government
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This argument ignores the fundamental nature of our constitutional system. The Founding Fathers sought to create a loose confederacy of states, joined together by a federal government with very little power. They created a constitutionally limited republic, not a direct democracy. They did so to protect fundamental liberties against the whims of the masses. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
government
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among the liberal/collectivist elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights. They believe the federal government is omnipotent, and that individual states should not have the power to challenge directives sent down from Washington. Their real goal is the abolition of statehood, because strong states represent a threat to their centralized collectivist agenda. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the President, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
government
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
With the presidential election still undecided, America is at an historic crossroads. Neither candidate will enjoy a public mandate or the usual honeymoon period in the White House. The partisan rancor is likely to increase in Congress. The already narrow Republican majority in the House has diminished, while the Senate may well be evenly divided between the parties. A lame duck congressional session is scheduled to complete the unfinished appropriations bills for 2001, which could not be finalized in the poisoned atmosphere before the elections. Relations between Congressional Republicans and the administration have deteriorated in the aftermath of presidential vetoes of hard fought legislation. This divisiveness underscores the larger issue facing the nation in the electoral college debate, which is the conflict between collectivism and freedom. Perhaps the uncertainty of the recent elections will cause Americans to rethink the role of the federal government in their lives.
government
Our Foolish War in the Middle East
20 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
The West has been at war with the Muslim world for over a thousand years. Following the British lead from the first half of this century, the United States has attempted to dominate the Middle East since World War II. The U.S. government has not hesitated to use its military might in the region, justifying its actions by claiming a right and need to protect "our" oil.
government
Our Foolish War in the Middle East
20 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
To put this in a proper perspective, consider how Americans, especially Texans, would feel if the Gulf of Mexico were patrolled by warships of a foreign power. What if that same power proceeded to build air bases in Texas and Florida with our government's complicity to protect "their" oil? Imagine the rightful anger this would spark among most Americans! This anger would be directed at both the foreign occupiers of our territorial waters, and our own government for permitting it. Yet this is exactly what has been happening in the Persian Gulf region. For religious, historic, and sovereignty reasons, the Muslim people harbor great resentment toward us.
government
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
The controversial presidential election remains unresolved this week, now that the Florida Supreme Court has decided to permit ongoing recounts of votes. The U.S. Supreme Court may well serve as the ultimate arbiter in this controversy. Regardless of the outcome, the popular vote totals for the two candidates will be remarkably close. The contentiousness of the post-election legal wrangling is certain to damage the political credibility of the winner. Even in the popular media, some have begun to question the legitimacy of the incoming administration, citing the deep divisions that seem to exist among voters. Ultimately, of course, the legitimacy of any president or government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
government
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
To an extent, America is indeed politically divided. Most Americans accept one of two general political philosophies. Individualists value liberty above all, and hence believe in individual responsibility, capitalism, limited government, and the Constitution. Collectivists, on the other hand, value "equality" above all, and view government as a benign force charged with redistributing wealth and managing our lives. While these two conflicting outlooks certainly do not define the major political parties, they are adhered to by many members of those parties.
government
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the collectivist approach has been gaining ground in American politics and government throughout this century. This is happening even as the obvious failures of collectivism (Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, for example) litter the history books. Ludwig VonMises, the great 20th century economist, predicted decades before the fall of the Soviet system that socialism was unworkable and would collapse upon itself. American policy-makers apparently have decided to ignore this warning as it relates to our own nation.
government
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The resulting division between American voters is the direct result of Washington's increasingly collectivist policies. Instead of moving toward a market economy and less dependency on the federal government in the midst of this so-called "prosperity,"each side in Washington continues to clamor for more of the taxpayer loot. The pretended goal of the economic planners has been economic fairness through redistribution of wealth. The real goal always has been an increasingly collectivist system which gives the federal government more and more power over our lives.
government
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
The goal of liberty has long been forgotten. An impasse was destined to come, and already signs of a fundamental conflict are evident. The presidential election in many ways demonstrates both an economic and political reality. The political stalemate mirrors the stalemate that is developing in the economy. Both eventually will cause deep division and hardship. The real problem- preserving the free market and private property rights- will worsen if ignored. The only solution offered by Washington will be more government intervention, increased spending, increased monetary inflation, more debt, and increased military interventionism throughout the world.
government
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The real victim, of course, is the Constitution and our liberty. The Founding Fathers created three coequal branches of government so that federal power never could grow unchecked. Their goal was to safeguard liberty. The judiciary was charged with preserving liberty by overturning laws which violated the Constitution; otherwise its role was to effectuate the intent of Congress. Over the past century, however, the unconstitutional notion of judicial supremacy has emerged in American politics. We have come to view courts as omnipotent superlegislatures which can substitute their wisdom rather than follow the law.
government
Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty
04 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
The Florida decision at least brings attention to the unfortunate activist trend; hopefully more Americans will give thought to the proper role of our courts as a result of the presidential election. Liberty cannot be preserved unless each branch of government stays within the confines of its constitutionally authorized powers. The separation of powers created in our Constitution is not an antiquated notion or a rhetorical theory, but rather a critical doctrine which is needed today more than ever.
government
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
government
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
government
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.
government
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
government
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Still, it is important to understand that the calls for "bipartisanship" really are nothing less than political threats aimed at president-elect Bush. Mainstream media and collectivist politicians want to create an atmosphere where adherence to principles and ideology is mischaracterized as mean-spirited or divisive. In other words, they are warning Bush not to pursue a conservative, limited government agenda. The not-so-subtle threat is that the administration will face a political firestorm unless it continues Clinton era policies, which are incorrectly presented as "bipartisan." For example, one prominent Senator recently called on Bush to insure passage of a "patient's bill of rights," which he insisted was mandated by widespread bipartisan support. This is nonsense, of course; most Americans rightfully oppose the terrible trend toward a government controlled health care system. Yet we are led to believe that Bush must accept and even endorse such proposals to expand the government's role in medicine in order to demonstrate "bipartisan cooperation."
government
The Bush Administration Must Honor its Commitment to Smaller Government
18 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Finally, it should be noted that many Democrats have indicated a willingness to support a tax cut package. Bush should remind everyone of these promises. Liberals and the media will attempt to characterize tax cuts as "too expensive" or a threat to the "surplus." The new administration must promote spending reductions as the key to fiscally responsible government. Government spending has reached mind-boggling levels; sane reductions easily could allow for tax relief without deficit spending by Congress.
government
The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas
25 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
As a strong believer in liberty and constitutionally limited government, I often find myself opposing Congress and the administration on a wide variety of legislative and policy matters. The fight to preserve and restore liberty seems endless, and it is tempting for liberty-minded Americans to feel overwhelmed by the battle. Oftentimes the outlook from Washington appears bleak; new threats to freedom arise constantly. Yet while freedom indeed requires eternal vigilance, we also must remember to take time to reflect upon and celebrate our great fortune as American citizens. The Christmas holiday provides us an opportunity to turn our attention away from the political landscape, and focus on our families and loved ones. It is very important that we appreciate the blessings of liberty we all enjoy as Americans, blessings which are easy to overlook when we are caught up in our daily lives. Our freedom is our greatest national treasure and resource. Countless thousands have died protecting it in wars; countless others have risked everything to reach American soil. As you celebrate the holidays with your families, I urge you to celebrate our freedoms as well.
government
The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas
25 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
America is the only nation truly conceived in liberty. The Founding Fathers, weary of oppression and taxation by a faraway king, made the heroic decision to secede and stake a claim to their own nation. They sought to disavow centuries of tribal warring, medieval feudalism, and collectivist rule by tyrants of every stripe. For the first time in human history they created a governmental system where the state existed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. It is impossible to overstate how radical this notion was at the time (and still is today). They created the first society where individual human happiness was held up as an ideal. The limited state established by the Constitution was charged with fostering that happiness by protecting property rights and preventing aggression. The courage of our Founders, clearly demonstrated in the resulting secessionist war with England, was fueled by their unquenchable desire to be free. Their daring set the stage for the emergence of the America we enjoy today.
government
A Legislative Agenda for 2001
01 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Spending reform should be the foremost priority for the new Congress. The fiscal year 2001 budget is bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending. The Clinton administration successfully pushed through spending increases far beyond those of the previous year. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies received even more in funding than originally requested in the Clinton budget. Dangerous foreign aid spending also grew, sending more of your tax dollars overseas and intensifying conflicts in trouble spots like Colombia, Kosovo, and the Middle East. Despite rosy predictions about the federal "surplus," the truth is that Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. Deficit spending and tax increases will be the inevitable consequences. No reasonable person can argue that our current $2 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress. Government spending not only affects our fiscal health as a nation; it also determines the size and scope of government power over our lives. Congress must show the resolve needed to challenge business as usual in Washington and dramatically cut spending.
government
A Legislative Agenda for 2001
01 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Congress also must address education reform in 2001. The answer is not more government spending on more failed federal programs. Federal involvement in education must be limited, returning control over schools to parents and local education boards. Federal tax dollars must be returned to parents through tax credits and deductions for tuition and other education-related expenses. No longer can we ask parents to send so much of their paychecks to Washington while their local schools deteriorate. Education standards in this country were much higher when local school boards controlled their own curricula, teacher standards, and discipline. Congress should understand this and focus on legislation which returns control and tax dollars back to parents, teachers, and local administrators. The era of micromanagement of our schools by federal education bureaucrats must end if we are to stop the decline in education standards.
government
A Legislative Agenda for 2001
01 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
2001 undoubtedly will be a pivotal year in Washington. The incoming administration and Congress can choose between expanding the size and role of the federal government, with increased spending and taxes as a result, or acknowledging that government is not the solution to every issue.
government
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The Clinton administration, working overtime during the eleventh hour to consolidate its pitiful "legacy," has taken another step toward imposing global government on U.S. citizens. On New Year's Eve, only hours before a United Nations midnight deadline, the President ordered a U.S. ambassador to sign the 1998 U.N. Rome treaty. This treaty purports to establish a worldwide U.N. criminal court, demonstrating the brazen willingness of global-government proponents to move forward with their plans. Once created, the international court will give the U.N. the mechanism it needs to enforce its global "laws" against American citizens. The legal apparatus represents the logical next step for ever-expanding U.N. power: first the phony "international laws" were created, and now a court system is needed to give teeth to the laws. International prisons in Geneva or Brussels cannot be far behind. All Americans concerned with our sovereignty as a nation should be very alarmed by this latest development. In fact, U.N. expert Henry Lamb recently stated that Clinton's endorsement of this treaty "may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure."
government
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The clear conflict between American life under our Constitution and life under a U.N. world government is intensifying. Although the Rome treaty perhaps is unlikely to be ratified by the Senate, the creation of the international tribunal undoubtedly will move forward regardless of our participation. Once the court is in place, there is every reason to believe it will attempt to assert its jurisdiction over all nations, even those that have not ratified the Rome treaty. The U.N. never has hesitated to exert its authority, militarily or otherwise, over non-member nations; surely the international court will follow suit. Remember, precedents set by the U.N. 40 and 50 years ago, such as engaging in "peacekeeping" wars across the globe, were controversial at the time. Today those precedents have become commonplace U.N. practice, despite the objections of many Americans.
government
International Criminal Court is the Latest U.N. Outrage
08 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Clinton administration has set a terrible new precedent. Even if the Rome treaty ultimately is not ratified by the U.S., Clinton's signing it further demonstrates our acquiescence to the global-government planners. Many Americans, rightfully concerned by this trend, have begun to question our participation in the U.N. They have begun to question the influence of global elites. The Clinton administration has used secrecy, stealth, and misinformation to thwart the will of the majority of Americans, who still wish to live in a free sovereign nation. In response, I will reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act in the new 107th Congress. This bill will end U.S. taxpayer support of the U.N., remove the organization from U.S. soil, and guarantee that no U.S. soldier ever serves under U.N. command. I urge all Americans opposed to world government to ask their Representatives to support my bill, while also asking their Senators to vote against ratification of the U.N. Rome treaty.
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Government Takeover of the Electricity Industry Threatened in California
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
In a scene more reminiscent of Soviet Russia or Maoist China than America, central government bureaucrats, economic planners, regulators, and regional government officials met behind closed doors last week in Washington. The purpose of their meeting? To discuss a wholesale government takeover of California's electricity industry.
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
California's woes are due in part to its tremendous population growth over the past decade. The influx of residents and businesses, particularly energy-intensive tech businesses, has greatly increased demand for electricity. The problem is that the California government has not allowed the construction of new power plants, in large part because of "environmentalists," citizens groups, and regulators hostile to property rights. The blatantly obvious result of high demand coupled with artificially low supply must be: high prices. Had the free market been allowed to operate, profit-seeking utility companies would have built new power plants to meet the demand and the situation would be very different today.
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Governor Davis, seemingly oblivious to the real problem (his own government), has accused California's electricity companies of "price gouging," and called for stricter price controls. He even threatened (chillingly) to seize the assets of utility companies if they do not lower prices. Ultimately, he wants a new state agency to control the entire industry and even build new power plants if necessary! (new plants apparently are OK if the government builds them). Davis exhibits the classic bureaucratic cycle: first the government creates the crisis, which is blamed on the free market, and then more government is justified to fix the crisis.
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Price controls will never work, because the laws of economics cannot be fooled. Price controls always result in shortages, because no rational business wants to produce something to sell at below-market rates. The California utility companies, which already are forced to sell to consumers at state-mandated prices, cannot do so forever. Their costs have increased dramatically; if they cannot raise prices they will be bankrupt. Utility companies outside the state simply refuse to sell to California because they can sell their power for a higher price elsewhere. This is why Governor Davis sought the meeting with Energy secretary Richardson. He wants the Feds to force utility companies in other states to sell energy to California. Unfortunately for Davis and Richardson, there are no laws (yet) forcing companies to stay in business forever while the government destroys them.
government
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
To politicians like Davis, only the government can save us. Like most politicians, he apparently accepts the myth that some goods and services are too vital to be left to the free market. However, it is precisely because energy is so vital that the government should not interfere in the electricity market. The operation of the market does not create a utopia, but it clearly would have prevented the California crisis. When the price rises in a free market, consumers simply use less energy (which supposedly is the goal of the "environmentalists"). When growth creates greater demand in a free market, the supply of energy increases to meet that demand. These simple principles, which are obvious to anyone studying basic economics, should be clear to the likes of Davis and Richardson. The likely explanation is that their true goal is the expansion of government power, without regard to the well-being of the people of California.
government
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate conducted hearings this week concerning the nomination of John Ashcroft for the position of Attorney General in the Bush administration. As anticipated, the debate has been rancorous and bitterly partisan. The longstanding practice by the Senate of generally approving cabinet nominees, thus allowing a new President the spoils of his victory, has eroded almost completely in the past two decades. The old standard for Senate approval simply was competence for the job, without regard to a nominee's personal politics. Mr. Ashcroft clearly is competent and very highly qualified for the job of Attorney General. In the new era, however, his political views are the primary focus of his opponents. Certain Senators, special interest groups, and the media have made it quite clear: the left will attack and characterize as unfit for high public office anyone who adheres to conservative principles. Their true goal is to create a precedent for the automatic disqualification of future cabinet nominees who disagree with their view of the proper role of the federal government. "Will he enforce all the laws?" they intone endlessly. What they really are asking is: "Will he question our efforts to continually expand the size and scope of the federal government?"
government
The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles
22 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The left will continue to attack those who adhere to a belief in limited constitutional government, in an attempt to redefine "mainstream" politics in America. The pattern is simple: the left continually moves its agenda to the left, fooling America that the center must move with them. Americans like John Ashcroft may be the victims of this unfortunate trend.
government
Education Freedom Legislation Will Provide Meaningful Reform
29 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
One of my main goals in the 107th Congress is to return control over our children's education to parents and teachers in Texas and across America. Unfortunately, as the federal government continues to increase its influence over education, the role of parents and teachers becomes more and more limited. Over the last 30 years, this increased federal control has proven harmful to education standards while wasting taxpayer dollars.
government
Education Freedom Legislation Will Provide Meaningful Reform
29 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The centerpiece of my education package is the "Family Education Freedom Act." This measure will give parents a $3,000 per-child per-year tax credit. The credit can apply to tuition, tutors, books, computers, and other related educational needs. It also applies equally to parents who choose to educate their children in public, private, or home settings. This tax cut is more effective than current voucher plans, which leave the door open to increased government influence on teacher standards and school curricula. Also, the tax credit takes no funding away from public schools.
government
Education Freedom Legislation Will Provide Meaningful Reform
29 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, I will introduce the "Teacher Tax Cut Act." This measure grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their salary by $1,000 annually without increasing local or federal education spending. Last year, new teachers made an average of $10,000 less than other college graduates. With teachers often ranking at the bottom tier of professional pay, the federal government must recognize that teaching our youth is an honorable and important profession. Many others in Congress agree that teachers deserve this tax credit: the "Teacher Tax Cut Act" already has received bipartisan support from Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-North Carolina), Rep. Dan Miller (R-Florida), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia), Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland).
government
Education Freedom Legislation Will Provide Meaningful Reform
29 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Each time we are presented with a new education proposal from Washington, it involves another layer of harmful federal bureaucracy. No big-government spending program can or will solve our nation's education problems. One-size-fits-all programs simply do not work. I want to give parents the freedom to choose the best options for their children. I want teachers to know that their services are valuable to our nation without making them subservient to federal bureaucrats. And I want to encourage local residents to get involved with their local schools through educational programs and scholarship funds.
government
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
An ABC news special entitled Mr. Stossel goes to Washington aired last weekend, documenting waste and inefficiency in government. In one particularly poignant example, the show profiled a woman who started a food kitchen to deliver hot meals to needy families in her small town. She operated with a small budget, using donations of food and money. Area families considered her a godsend, as she often provided the only complete meal they had each day. The success of her efforts, however, was quickly diminished when the federal government began investigating her operation. Because she received some federal funds, she was required to comply with numerous regulations. The stove she used did not have a hood, which federal regulations mandate. Her only choice was to buy a new stove, at prohibitive cost, or stop using her stove altogether. The government refused to make an exception for her, and now she runs a smaller kitchen which delivers only cold bag lunches. Of course, the ultimate victim of the government's shortsighted policy is the local families who once enjoyed hot meals. This example does not represent an isolated case, but rather is typical of the way government regulations harm our citizens.
government
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The ABC expose aired just days before President Bush announced his plan to allow private charities and religious organizations a greater role in delivering social services currently provided mostly by the federal government. He certainly is correct in his assertion that private groups do a better job of running food banks, day care centers, drug treatment centers, and other social programs. I applaud his desire to transfer funds away from government agencies and into the private sector. I certainly disagree with critics who misunderstand the First amendment and view the President's proposal as a sinister endorsement of religion. Bush especially should be credited for offering an alternative to the status quo, because federal agencies simply do a terrible job of providing social services.
government
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The proposal has risks, however. First, the federal welfare state simply may expand in size and scope. Congress seemingly is incapable of reducing spending, instead adding billions to the budget every year. This excessive spending may expand to fund private organizations in addition to current funding for federal agencies. I doubt seriously that savings created by the substitution of efficient private organizations for inefficient federal agencies will ever be reflected in the federal budget. The more likely scenario is that government spending will grow more than ever.
government
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Second, religious organizations risk the sanctity of their faith when they involve themselves with government. The government will have to decide what religious organizations qualify for federal funds, which puts it in the untenable position of deciding which faiths are legitimate. Would the pro-abortion Health and Human Services department ever surrender funds to a strongly pro-life Catholic charity? Would American taxpayers support funding for an organization viewed by many as a cult, if it ran an efficient soup kitchen? These uncomfortable questions suggest that some faiths would be tempted to change their message to win favor with the government. The liberal collectivists have the argument against the President's proposal all wrong: the danger is not that government will be influenced by religion, but rather that religion will be influenced by government.
government
Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations
05 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The better approach is to abide by constitutional strictures and get the federal government completely out of the business of providing social services. Private charities and religious organizations will flourish in this country if we simply get government out of the way. First and foremost, we must exempt such organizations from regulations which constantly thwart their efforts. Second, we must endorse the proposal by President Bush to allow all Americans a deduction for charitable contributions, regardless of whether they itemize deductions or not. The majority of taxpayers apply the standard deduction, and they should enjoy a tax benefit for giving to charity even in small amounts. We should allow a 100% deduction for all contributions, regardless of whether to a standard charity, a charitable foundation or trust, or a religious organization. Finally, we must massively reduce government spending, so that income taxes can be lowered drastically. Americans are charitable by nature, but they rightfully resent losing nearly half their incomes to various levels of government. American charities would see huge increases in their budgets for providing social services if taxes were reduced to sane levels.
government
"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.
government
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.
government
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The ultimate result of our embargo policies is obvious: when our government prevents American companies from selling their goods abroad, it creates an economic hardship for those companies and their employees. Similarly, when the government prevents American consumers from buying the goods or services they want from certain countries, it simply diminishes the living standards of those Americans. Washington intervention in international trade only benefits certain special interests for a short time. In the long run, the vast majority of American citizens and businesses would benefit from unfettered access to all foreign markets. An example is the relatively unregulated software industry, where American companies absolutely dominate the global marketplace. Americans don't need help competing, but they do need a government which does not hinder their access to foreign markets. By following the current policy of government-managed trade and special interest favoritism, Congress is harming the constituents it was elected to represent. The sooner we adopt policies which promote free exchange with all nations, the better off our nation and its people will be.
government
Tax Cuts Benefit All Americans
19 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, several prominent members of Congress held a press conference outside the Capitol to criticize President Bush's new tax proposal. The usual class warfare rhetoric was marshaled against the President, even though his plan proposes an exceedingly modest tax cut. The tired arguments against tax relief, even in the face of growing single-year tax surpluses, are not only wrong but also inherently deceitful. We've heard it all before: tax cuts favor the rich, who ought to pay more so the government can save us with wonderful federal programs. This emotionalist approach should have zero credibility with an informed public, particularly in light of decades of evidence that the economic benefits of lower taxes help far more Americans than any government "benevolence."
government
Tax Cuts Benefit All Americans
19 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Beyond the deceit, however, is the unmistakable Washington mentality so clearly exhibited by the assembled politicians. One Member told the audience with a straight face that the Bush proposal needed further study to "see who gets what." In the surreal world of Congress, your income presumptively belongs to the government, which decides what members of society deserve federal largesse. Any income you get to keep is generously "given" to you by the federal government. Tax cut proposals are studied to determine the "cost" to government, and opposition is rallied with the cry "we can't afford it." Perversely, this mentality is touted by politicians who claim that tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible. They endlessly repeat the lie that Reagan-era tax cuts caused deficits, when in truth it was the inability of Congress to control spending which ballooned our national debt. In fact, 1980s tax cuts increased federal revenues, because economic output expands when government takes less. To hear big spending, pro-tax politicians claim they represent fiscal responsibility strains the limits of believability.
government
Tax Cuts Benefit All Americans
19 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Also, the class argument that average Americans do not benefit from tax cuts cannot be supported by facts. The Bush proposal, though far too modest in my view, is very straightforward. A key feature of the plan simplifies and lowers all marginal rates. Every taxpayer, regardless of income, will pay taxes at a lower rate than before under the plan. An American with a modest income might save $1,000 on his yearly tax bill, which could mean more to him than a million dollars would to a very wealthy taxpayer. This benefit is ignored in Washington and in the popular press. The focus, as always, is on overhyped disparities in wealth. The assumption is that government, rather than individual achievement in the marketplace, should determine who becomes wealthy.
government
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
February 13th marked a sad day for religious liberty in America, as the federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing a church to satisfy an alleged tax debt. Armed federal marshals forcibly removed parishioners and clergy from the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), bringing an end to years of legal challenges that ended with the Supreme Court refusing to hear an IBT appeal.
government
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Amazingly, the tax dispute arose not over a failure to pay income taxes per se, but rather over the failure of the IBT to follow tax withholding rules. The tax code forces all employers, including churches, to act as collection agents for the IRS by presumptively withholding a portion of every employee's paycheck for federal taxes. The IBT steadfastly has refused to withhold taxes from its employees, arguing that religious beliefs prevent it from acting as an agent for a secular government agency. Two important facts have been largely overlooked in the ensuing controversy. First, the IBT (unlike most churches) also refused tax benefits available to it through registration as a tax-exempt religious organization. Second, more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld. So the heart of the dispute really was about IBT's principled refusal to do the government's bidding. The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors.
government
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The IBT tragedy is about religious liberty, not taxes. Churches should not be required to pay or withhold taxes any more than they should be given tax dollars from the government. The First amendment grants churches the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs without interference from government. When tax laws force churches to act as collection agents for the IRS, this precious right is lost. The income tax represents the ultimate entanglement between churches and the government. When churches file income tax returns, the government becomes intimately familiar with their activities. Only those faiths deemed valid by IRS bureaucrats are rewarded with partial tax-exempt status. This entanglement chills true religious expression, because churches may alter their message to quell criticisms of government and avoid audits. When the government has the power to tax churches, it ultimately has the power to control them.
government
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The state-loving media scarcely mentioned the IBT story, with brief articles predictably portraying the church as a fringe organization that avoided its taxes. This follows an established pattern of characterizing religious conservatives who protest the federal government as dangerous extremists, implicitly associated with militias and racists. Imagine the national media coverage, and resulting public outrage, if a minority church was seized over a refusal to pay taxes. Protestors supporting left-wing causes like abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, feminism, AIDS, and animal rights consistently are shown as courageous martyrs fighting for principle against an unfeeling society and government. Conservative protestors, however, are shown as sinister bigots who selfishly refuse to follow benign laws and politically correct social rules.
government
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
26 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The IBT story has resounded with many Americans, however. A strong undercurrent of dissent has manifested itself below the mainstream media radar, on radio talk shows and websites. My office has received hundreds of angry letters, emails, and phone calls denouncing the government's actions. People of all faiths understand that the threat to religious liberty affects all Americans. No society can remain free if it lacks strong institutions to challenge an overreaching government.
government
Spy Scandal Reveals Deeper Problems with Federal Police Agencies
05 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The recent FBI spy scandal continues to make national headlines, particularly given FBI director Louis Freeh's statement that the damage done to U.S. intelligence was "exceptionally grave." While it's certainly tragic that a veteran FBI agent allegedly sold high-level secrets to the Russians for years, the greater tragedy is our government's continued intervention in the domestic affairs of virtually every nation on earth. Corrupted spies simply are an inevitable by-product of our own government's relentless quest to police the world.
government
Spy Scandal Reveals Deeper Problems with Federal Police Agencies
05 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The answer, of course, is that federal police agencies like the FBI, DEA, and BATF have enormously expanded their jurisdictions. Director Freeh has opened FBI offices around the world in recent years; presumably his agents are involving themselves not only with international crime and terrorism, but also with wholly domestic crime in foreign countries. This deployment of hundreds of agents abroad should trouble any American concerned with the sanctity of national sovereignty. Our government hardly can expect other nations to respect our right to manage our domestic affairs when we meddle so aggressively in theirs.
government
Spy Scandal Reveals Deeper Problems with Federal Police Agencies
05 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Just as Congress abandoned the Constitution to create the domestic welfare state, so too has Congress sacrificed constitutional principles to advance the global warfare state. The use of domestic agencies to engage in international espionage demonstrates clearly the mentality of our federal politicians and bureaucrats. To them federal power is limitless, to be used without regard to constitutional restrictions. The media plays along by focusing on the lurid details of the accused agent's activities, rather than the larger constitutional issues. In short, we should expect the federal government to continue intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. We are likely to see more spy scandals. The current news will be forgotten quickly, but similar abuses inevitably will result from our arrogant and misguided foreign policy.
government
Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
12 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Those opposing the tax cut said that it would "cost the government too much" and hurt the economy. The truth of the matter is that the economy is hurt when the government takes money out of the paychecks of private citizens that they would otherwise spend, save or invest. The government has never created anything, much less economic prosperity. The government can only take from one and give to another.
government
Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
12 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Only the private sector can create growth, a lesson that the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington would be wise to learn. The average American pays about 1/2 of their income in federal, state and local taxes every year. This is a clear and present danger to the liberty of the individual. We need to free people from the chains of over-taxation and allow them to go back to work for themselves instead of the government. The Bush tax plan is a step in the right direction, but we must do more to put money back into an individual's paycheck.
government
Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
12 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Along with reducing tax rates, we must rid ourselves of the estate tax and end the terrible practice of imposing a tax on families when a loved one dies. This tax penalizes thrift and savings, denying Americans the right to pass their property to their children. It forces the sale of many small family businesses when heirs cannot pay the estate tax bill. The estate tax simply takes money away from families and puts it in the hands of the government. There is no moral or economic justification for estate taxes and they must be eliminated.
government
Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
12 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Of course, the ultimate goal is the entire elimination of the federal income tax. Regardless of the rate reductions in the Bush plan, the IRS remains an uncontrolled bureaucracy. People have become so disillusioned by its current structure that support for a flat tax or a national sales tax has finally gained momentum. It is important to remember that the federal government operated for more than 130 years without an income tax. It is time to return to a simple, fair method of funding the federal government. An elimination of the income tax, however, would require a drastic reduction of spending in Washington. A responsible federal government that obeyed the limits placed on it by the Constitution could easily operate on a much smaller budget.
government
Bush Tax Plan Only One Piece of the Tax Cut Puzzle
12 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Yes, it is true - I have never met a tax cut I didn't like. The American people are over-taxed. The average person pays more to their government than they do for the combined cost of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and education in a year. The Bush tax plan is a step in the right direction, but we must continue to chip away at the tax system that threatens the freedoms and liberties of hard-working people in Texas and all over America.
government
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
19 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Such thinking should be dismissed as absurd. Economic recessions are not the result of a gloomy national state of mind; if so, we could create economic prosperity simply by positive thinking. Yet basic education in economics is so badly lacking in America that many will accept this preposterous idea. The same ignorance of economic principles is behind the fallacy that capitalism is to blame for recessions, that a free market system causes an inevitable cycle of booms and busts. In reality, it is government intervention in the economy, particularly in the areas of money supply and interest rates, which creates the precarious financial bubbles that cause economic recessions.
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Medical privacy advocates enjoyed a victory last week when the Supreme Court ruled that a government hospital in South Carolina violated the constitutional rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their consent. The hospital ostensibly began the testing program because of concerns about increasing cocaine use by pregnant patients, but if the hospital was concerned only with patient and fetus health, why were test results turned over to law enforcement? Several women were arrested and put in jail because of the tests, with their newborns presumably taken away to become wards of the state. Not surprisingly, the rationale for this terrible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality was the drug war. The real tragedy of this case is that it may cause pregnant women to conceal illegal drug use from their doctors out of fear of arrest. How many babies will be misdiagnosed or go untreated because their mothers no longer have any medical privacy?
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth amendment in ruling against the hospital. The drug war has been used for too long as an excuse for unconstitutional actions by government. The Fourth and Fifth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and compelled testimony routinely are ignored by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and especially federal agencies. As a result, all Americans have suffered the loss of liberties guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
As a physician, I cannot imagine providing my patients' medical records to police as evidence for a criminal prosecution. Like most doctors, I adhere to a strict policy of maintaining patient confidentiality. Medical privacy has existed for centuries between doctors and patients, without government interference. However, the drug war has provided the ever-growing federal government with new justifications to invade your once-private medical history.
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the drug war is not the only threat to your medical privacy. Medical privacy also is under assault by Washington health bureaucrats. The federal government wants greater access to your private medical records than ever before. On April 14, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is scheduled to implement invasive new medical rules written during the Clinton administration. The proposed rules require doctors and other health care providers to give patient records to the federal government for very broadly defined purposes and without patient consent. The rules grant law enforcement access to patient records without a search warrant. Patients will have only limited knowledge of who sees their records, and individuals will not be able to sue health care providers or the government for breaches of privacy. Ultimately, your medical history will be readily available to any government agency that wishes to create a national medical database.
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The dangers posed by these regulations are obvious. Patients will hesitate to disclose information to their doctors if they fear such information will end up in a federal database. Doctors will be unable to provide effective care when patients conceal sensitive medical problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and psychiatric problems. The HHS rules threaten to turn doctors into government agents, who are required to divulge information which ultimately could be used against their patients by federal agencies, law enforcement, and health insurers.
government
The Fight for Medical Privacy Continues in Washington
26 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 March 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
I recently introduced legislation to halt implementation of the new HHS rules. The federal government has no business knowing your private medical history. Don't believe the bureaucrats who tell us they have innocent reasons for wanting our medical records. The truth is that the federal government wants to eliminate your medical privacy, just as it has eliminated so many of your liberties.
government
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week Congress began its annual budget debate. As usual, big-spending members from both parties took every opportunity to lobby for huge increases in their pet programs. I'm always amazed by the arrogance with which Congress proposes to spend taxpayer funds, but this year is even worse because of the tax overcharge (also known as the "surplus"). The overcharge presents Congress with an obvious opportunity to significantly cut taxes, but the spending frenzy threatens to swallow the tax relief debate. The big spenders are doing their best to confuse America into believing that the government cannot "afford" to cut taxes. In truth, they simply don't want Congress to face even the slightest spending constraints.
government
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The tax cut debate is wholly separate from the budget debate. I promised the voters in my district that I would uphold the Constitution and fight to make the federal government smaller. This promise compels me to vote for all tax cuts and against all spending increases. My voting record in Congress shows that I consistently vote to reduce the size of government.
government
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
I certainly support President Bush's tax cut initiatives, and I will vote (or have voted) for each plank in his tax cut plan. Lowering marginal rates, eliminating the marriage penalty, abolishing the death tax- these are worthy goals for any administration. I also applaud the President for living up to his campaign promises by making these tax cuts a priority. Congress already approved marginal rate reductions and elimination of the marriage penalty; estate tax repeal legislation likely will reach the House floor in April. At this rate the President may enact his tax cut proposals by the end of the year, which would be a great accomplishment for a new administration. Certainly my own legislation would reduce taxes more drastically, but I always support any tax cut proposals as a step in the right direction. Voters in my district know that I am committed to reducing the size of the federal government, and tax reduction is an important step in returning the federal government to its proper constitutional role.
government
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
However, the single greatest threat to our liberty in America is uncontrolled spending by Congress. Americans need to understand the stark reality behind the often boring and confusing budget rhetoric: Congress will spend nearly $2 trillion in 2002. This amount represents almost 11% more than Congress will spend in 2001. This massive spending funds an unbelievable number of federal departments, agencies, programs, and personnel. Most Americans understand that the federal government is far too large, yet most of their representatives in Congress continue to vote for spending increases every year. As a result, the same unconstitutional agencies grow, the same counterproductive programs are perpetuated, and the same military adventurism expands around the globe. In short, this spending insures that the federal government has more and more power over our lives, power never dreamed of nor intended by the authors of our Constitution. The more Congress spends, the less liberty we have.
government
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
We hear Congress talk about smaller government, but the size of the federal budget increases each year. Huge amounts of federal spending could be eliminated if Congress adhered to the limited enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. I plan to continue my efforts during the summer appropriations process to fight for needed cuts in the bloated federal budget.
government
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week the Senate narrowly passed the highly publicized McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. I certainly understand that many Americans are tired of the corruption in Washington, where special interest lobbies pursue their agendas at the expense (literally) of the nation's taxpayers. Everyone knows that politicians use federal spending to reward lobbies, certain constituencies, and favored individuals. However, we must recognize that the McCain bill places restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill. The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The problem is not with campaigns, but rather with the steady shift from a relatively limited federal government to a virtually socialist system intent on huge redistributions of wealth.
government
"Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington
09 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.
government
Tax Day- A National Nightmare
16 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The one issue that generates more complaints to my office than any other is the income tax. Everyone has an opinion about taxes. For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. Every April, Americans confess to the IRS their actions of the past year in excruciating detail. It's an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of withholding taxes, April is the only time each year when most people realize how much money they really send the federal government.
government
Tax Day- A National Nightmare
16 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
What do Americans have to say about the income tax? First and foremost, they think federal tax laws are far too complex. They are tired of the incomprehensible rules, schedules, and forms which take hours to complete. They believe income taxes should be much simpler and fairer. They know that deductions are created for purely political reasons, without regard to common sense or clarity. They resent the arbitrary power the IRS has over their lives, especially when it is so difficult to calculate one's tax liability. Of course they also think taxes are too high, that government wastes taxpayer dollars with excessive and unwise spending. Some favor a flat tax, while others support a national sales tax. Some simply want deductions simplified. In short, Americans want reform. They want a new system of revenue collection, one that is simple and provides accountability. They want to know where the dollars are going.
government
Tax Day- A National Nightmare
16 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
It is useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2 trillion, and it is obscene that such a sum is even considered. When the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will take care of itself.
government
Tax Day- A National Nightmare
16 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Other oppressive tax regimes have met their demise in the past, and I fear our government may be as arrogant and wasteful as any in history. Perhaps America is ready to reclaim the proud tax-fighting heritage of our Founding Fathers. I suggest the 2002 ballot box as the first battlefield. Those who support higher taxes and spending deserve to be the first political casualties.
government
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The irony is that we also subsidize the Chinese government and people through the United Nations and our own Export-Import Bank. Americans should be very concerned when their tax dollars are sent to the same regime portrayed as an enemy by our own government. We should not subsidize trade or provide foreign aid to any country, and it is folly to believe those dollars will not be used against us. We just witnessed a terrible example of the danger of foreign aid: the Chinese fighter threatening the lives of our crew carried Israeli missiles built with American aid dollars. Perhaps this incident will make more Americans aware of the perils of arming both our "friends" and our enemies."
government
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The best route to a lasting peace with China is true free trade, meaning trade without government barriers, subsidies, or multinational bodies like the WTO. Mao's China, closed from trade with the world, would have had little incentive to return our captured crew, and every incentive to use them as hostages. Today's China, while still authoritarian, depends on America to buy billions in goods. The Chinese government thus faced political and economic pressure to settle the dispute peacefully, rather than alienate millions of American consumers. Politics aside, few countries want to go to war with their customers or their suppliers.
government
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
30 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.
government
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
government
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
government
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
government
The Case Against the Income Tax
07 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
government
Don't Blame the Free Market for Energy Shortages
21 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Political pressure is mounting in Washington as gas prices rise and the California electricity shortage worsens. The national media and politicians from both parties have irresponsibly characterized the situation as an energy "crisis,"thereby generating public support for further unconstitutional and unwise federal intervention in energy markets. Washington appears to have accepted full responsibility for the California problem; hence the one-sided debate centers around a supposed need for a national energy policy. The obvious implication is that the federal government must play nanny to California or any other state which finds itself facing shortages caused by its own bad policies. Never mind that California caused its own problems by restricting supply and freezing energy prices while the population skyrocketed. The real danger is that the federal government may repeat California's mistakes on a national level, subjecting the rest of the nation to similar shortages. The true crisis facing us is not a physical shortage of energy, but rather the looming threat that socialist economic planning will replace market mechanisms and cause unnecessary shortages.
government
Don't Blame the Free Market for Energy Shortages
21 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The worst idea coming out of Washington (with support even from some supposedly free market politicians) is that the federal government should impose price controls on energy companies that sell to California. The politically favored term is "price caps," which sounds less authoritarian. The premise is that greedy energy companies charge California too much, so the federal government should set "reasonable" limits on wholesale prices. The accusation of price gouging is never questioned: no one considers the costs involved in producing excess capacity to sell to California. Why should electric companies sell their power at below-market rates? Is it their responsibility to correct the mistakes of California politicians? Why do we presume the federal government has any authority or credibility to determine prices and profits?
government
Don't Blame the Free Market for Energy Shortages
21 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The answer is obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of basic economics: price controls always cause shortages. When government sets a price too low, supply drops. The simplicity of this is apparent to anyone who examines a supply and demand chart, and history consistently proves the folly of centralized government price planning. Producers of energy (or any other good) make less when they are forced to sell at below-market prices. This is exactly what happened in California. Expect energy companies simply to stop selling to California if new federal price controls are imposed. It's discouraging that basic economic fallacies are still used to justify terribly harmful government practices.
government
Don't Blame the Free Market for Energy Shortages
21 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Free markets work. Government, not markets or deregulation, causes the economic woes we face today. Free markets insure that supply and demand are evenly matched, preventing shortages. Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, free markets always promote conservation by increasing the price of precious resources as they become scarcer. Advocates of socialist central planning in Washington may claim to have the solutions to energy shortages, but in truth market forces cannot be ignored any more than the laws of physics. Americans who want to continue to enjoy uninterrupted energy supplies should oppose any federal regulation of energy markets.
government
The Federal Education Morass
28 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 28 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Yet while the need for new policies in Washington has never been greater, the approach unfortunately remains the same: more federal spending and more federal control. Last week Congress passed legislation that massively increases funding for failed Education department programs. Although the bill was widely hailed as bipartisan, the truth is that it contained mostly liberal measures promoted by Democratic members of Congress. Key Republican provisions such as school vouchers and unconditional flexibility for local school districts were not included. Regardless of the party stamp, the bill clearly represents a big-spending, big government plan that will only serve to further entrench the wasteful federal education monopoly.
government
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
government
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
government
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court
04 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 04 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.
government
The Bush Tax Cut
11 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 11 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week President Bush signed into law the tax cut bill that ultimately emerged as a compromise between competing political interests in the House and Senate. I voted for and fully support the tax reductions contained in the bill, and I appreciate the President's efforts in making tax relief the first priority in his new administration. However, I am disappointed that Congress was unable to pass far more significant and immediate tax relief. Unfortunately, big spenders from both parties worked hard to characterize the tax cut as a "gift" from government to American taxpayers, as though the money belongs to Congress! These pro-tax politicians believe every penny of the bloated $2 trillion federal budget is essential to their beloved pork programs, hence they always argue that "we" cannot afford a tax cut. Millions of American families, however, certainly can afford a tax cut that leaves more money in their paychecks. So while the final bill passed last week represents a political compromise, I believe there is broad public support outside Washington for much larger tax reductions. Congress should not allow the wasteful spenders to prevent passage of further needed tax cut legislation over the coming months.
government
The Bush Tax Cut
11 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 11 June 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Finally, most Americans who paid taxes in 2000 will receive advance payment refunds intended to give them the benefit of the new brackets had they been in place for 2001. Individuals will receive up to $300; married couples filing jointly will receive up to $600. This refund is not taxable income for federal tax purposes, although some states will apply their own taxes. Thankfully, Texas has no state income tax! With a return to constitutional government, Texans and all Americans could enjoy life without federal income taxes as well.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The vast majority of Americans want and expect their medical records to be kept strictly confidential. Recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose giving government the power to create a national health database or issue health ID numbers. People instinctively understand that federal databases and ID numbers only serve to destroy personal privacy by making it easier for both government and the private sector to access their private medical history. Yet federal bureaucrats at the department of Health and Human Services, with the help of Congress, have succeeded in implementing regulations which place every American's medical records in the hands of the government. Worst of all, they have done so while claiming to protect our privacy! Only in Washington can so-called "medical privacy" regulations actually authorize such blatant invasions of privacy by the government.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The most dangerous aspect of the new regulations is the implementation of a national medical record database. All health care providers, including private physicians, insurance companies, and HMOs, will be forced to use a standard data format for patient records. Once standardized information is entered into a networked government database, it will be virtually impossible to prevent widespread dissemination of that information. If the federal government really seeks to protect medical privacy, why it is so eager to have its citizens' medical records easily available in one centralized database? The truth is that a centralized database will make it far easier for both government agencies and private companies to access your health records.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
HHS officials have sought to reassure the public that the new rules require patient consent before physicians may release medical information. Unfortunately, however, the consent protection has very limited effect. First, your physician likely will refuse to treat you if you decline consent to share your records. This is almost certain to happen, because heavy fines (and even jail sentences!) will be imposed on physicians who don't exactly follow the new regulations. Furthermore, there are very broad exceptions to the consent rule for ill-defined categories such as "oversight of the health care system," "public health," "law enforcement activities," "judicial and administrative proceedings," and "national defense and security." These exceptions give the government almost unlimited justifications to access your private records not only without your consent, but also without your knowledge. The law enforcement exception is particularly troubling, because the 4th Amendment clearly prohibits warrantless searches of medical records by government officials. So while on the surface the new rules may seem to give patients some control, the reality is that the consent protection is largely meaningless.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
We should remember that private physicians have maintained patient privacy for centuries without government involvement, relying instead on personal conviction, the Hippocratic Oath, and professional standards. Patients once knew without question that anything they told their doctor would remain confidential. However, the physician/patient relationship is certain to change for the worse when control over patient records is transferred from medical professionals to government agencies. When patients know that their sensitive medical information will be turned over to government agencies or placed in a national database, they inevitably will be less open and honest when seeking medical care. Patients with drug and alcohol problems, mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, or other stigmatized health concerns will be especially reluctant to seek treatment. The inevitable result will be a decline in the standard of care delivered by doctors and an increase in health care costs.
government
Medical Privacy Threatened by Federal Health Bureaucrats
18 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
As a physician, I have vigorously opposed the new HHS rules since they first were proposed by the Clinton administration. I introduced legislation earlier this year to prevent their implementation, but unfortunately the deadline for Congress to act on my bill expired last week. However, the fight is not lost, as the rules do not become legally enforceable until 2003. Congress still has time to pass new legislation which prohibits the federal government from gathering your private medical information. I urge every American concerned with medical privacy and quality health care to join me in the fight to keep government out of our medical records.
government
End Trade Sanctions that Hurt Texas Farmers
25 June 2001 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked- when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.
government
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of privately-funded charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans once paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than a third-party insurance company or government program. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. Somehow, however, the clear connection between government involvement in medicine and the decline in our once-proud healthcare system has been lost in the current debate.
government
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Today most Americans obtain health care either through an HMO or similar managed-care organization, or through government Medicare and Medicaid. Since it is very hard to make actuarial estimates for routine health care, HMOs charge most members a similar monthly premium. Because HMOs always want to minimize their costs, they often deny payment for various drugs, treatments, and procedures. Similarly, Medicare does not have unlimited funds, so it generally covers only a portion of any costs. The result of this system is that doctors and patients cannot simply decide what treatment is appropriate; instead, they constantly find themselves being second-guessed by HMO accountants and government bureaucrats. When a third party is paying the bills and malpractice lawsuits loom, doctors have every incentive to maximize costs and order all possible tests and treatments. At the same time, patients suffer when legitimate needed treatment is denied. HMOs have become a corporate, bureaucratic middleman in the healthcare system, driving up costs while undeniably degrading the quality of our medical care.
government
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
So what should we do about the HMO mess? Before we call for government action, we should recognize that the federal government has virtually mandated HMOs on the American people First, the tax code excludes health insurance from taxation when purchased by an employer, but not when purchased by an individual. Second, the HMO Act of 1973 forced all but the smallest employers to offer HMOs to their employees. So while many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking managed care is on record in the 1970s lauding HMOs as "effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality." As usual, government intervention in the private market has caused unintended consequences, but Washington blames only the HMOs themselves- not the laws that created them.
government
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, the loudest voices on Capitol Hill now calling for a so-called "patients bill of rights" don't want to abolish the HMO mandate. Instead, more government is proposed to fix the problem. Congress wants to micromanage the system, deciding what treatments and drugs should be paid for by health insurers. Congress also wants to create new rules allowing lawsuits against employers when the HMO refuses treatment to an employee! Surely the trial lawyers will support the new laws, but Americans certainly should understand that more federal involvement will only increase the cost of health insurance for everyone. Undoubtedly, lower-paid workers will find themselves completely uninsured when their premiums increase beyond affordable levels. The truth is that any new legislation will only serve to increase government involvement in our health care system, to the detriment of us all. Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a socialized medicine system. It's politically expedient to slap a "patients rights" label on legislation which simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine.
government
"Patients Bill of Rights" or Federal Takeover of Medicine?
02 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
We can hardly blame the market for our current healthcare woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and patient responsibility keeping costs down. Government has neither the constitutional authority nor the wisdom to determine appropriate contract terms between individuals and health insurers. Congress needs to abolish the HMO mandate and allow favorable tax treatment for individuals paying for health care directly. Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which are tax-deductible and tax-exempt accounts used to pay medical expenses, should be made available to all Americans. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. No "patients bill of rights" will help us when the money runs out.
government
UN War Crimes Tribunal Cannot Create Peace
09 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
UN-initiated wars, even when followed by UN war crimes trials, cannot simply create peace in troubled nations. Time and time again, we have witnessed the folly of intervening in the domestic conflicts of sovereign countries. The US did so in Korea and Vietnam with disastrous results, and now the UN has supplanted the US as the world's policeman (although largely with US tax dollars). Kosovo undoubtedly will not be the last example of this pattern of UN "peacekeeping," where the UN chooses sides in a domestic war, intensifies the conflict, engineers a winner, and puts the loser on trial. Yet history demonstrates that respecting the sovereignty of individual nations does far more to promote peace than military intervention, even when such intervention is undertaken for humanitarian reasons. Nations have every right to criticize and denounce foreign governments, but they have no right to initiate aggression against such governments simply because they muster up a gang of allies who share their view. The UN, as a collective body, cannot make moral acts of aggression that clearly would be immoral if initiated by a single nation.
government
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
A UN conference on small arms trading began last week in New York, with the goal of creating global standards for the manufacture, sale, export, and possession of guns. While UN spokesmen claim that any proposals arising from the conference will not be legally binding, the organization's own website details an earlier conference in Vienna (March 2001) where delegates agreed to a "legally binding protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms" (italics added). Furthermore, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been outspoken in advocating global gun laws, even proposing that small arms be supplied to governments only, and not individuals (as though governments use weapons wisely!). So it's obvious that the UN ultimately seeks to impose global gun control on individuals everywhere, despite any benign rhetoric. Clearly, every American who cares about the 2nd Amendment and the steady erosion of gun rights should be very concerned by this latest UN outrage.
government
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The gun control conference merely represents the newest UN threat to our national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly requires Congress to enact U.S. domestic laws. No treaty or international agreement can transfer this legislative power from Congress to UN bureaucrats, and the 2nd Amendment plainly prohibits restrictions on private gun ownership by U.S. citizens. Yet the trend toward unconstitutional international laws already is firmly established. The UN wants to generate the same acceptance for global gun laws that it has established for global environmental and labor laws. As the global government trend intensifies, the conflicts between internationalism and sovereign constitutional government will only increase. The UN gun control conference provides Congress and the American people with an opportunity to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment over the dictates of global gun-grabbers.
government
UN Plans for Global Gun Control
16 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The simple truth is that the UN is not concerned with our Constitution or our system of government. It is concerned only with expanding its power. It's hardly surprising that global government planners seek to impose global gun control, because disarmed nations will be that much easier to rule. Remember, the UN has much more power today than anyone could have imagined 50 years ago. So while it may seem far-fetched today that the UN could ever force U.S. citizens to turn over their arms, the current gun control conference could be planting the seed for such tyranny in decades to come. UN supporters like to ridicule the notion that the UN represents the beginning of one-world government, but what other label can be applied to an organization that seeks global laws, global courts, centralized legislative power, and a worldwide army?
government
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress recently plunged headlong into its summer appropriations period, making decisions about how to spend nearly two trillion dollars in 2002. Every year, Congress considers 13 massive appropriations bills that fund the federal government, and every year I'm amazed by the staggering amounts spent. The real problem, of course, is that so much of the spending funds agencies and programs not authorized in the Constitution. I especially object to foreign aid spending, which clearly is unconstitutional under the enumerated powers clause. In short, Congress has zero authority to send your tax dollars overseas, and the Founders would be dismayed by the extent of our intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. Yet few in Congress or the media ever question the wisdom of sending literally billions of U.S. tax dollars overseas.
government
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 11 ... Cached
o Millions for Iraq, Cambodia, and Sudan, all of which have oppressive governments. Do we really think the citizens will get the money?
government
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 12 ... Cached
o $1.4 billion for the IMF and World Bank, which simply make bad loans to questionable governments at U.S. taxpayer expense.
government
Congress Sends Billions Overseas
23 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2001 verse 14 ... Cached
It's ironic that Congress is sending more money abroad even as the U.S. economy limps toward recession. Those foreign aid dollars should have been returned to taxpayers to spend, save, invest, or donate to charity. In the fight against big government, we should start by demanding that Congress abide by the Constitution and stop sending U.S. taxpayer funds overseas.
government
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.
government
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes- I want to get the federal government out of your pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.
government
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, I always oppose trade sanctions against foreign nations. Sanctions are terribly ineffective foreign policy tools that harm the people, rather than the governments, of nations we hold in disfavor. Sanctions also hurt American exporters, including Texas farmers, who are prohibited from selling their products overseas. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed sanctions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in those nations. Given our status as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I recently voted to against continued trade sanctions against Iran and Libya, and I have introduced legislation to end our trade embargo against Cuba. All Americans benefit from both sides of the free trade equation, and Congress should not interfere with exports any more than it should tax imports.
government
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
government
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
In America, the President does not act as a king. The executive does not have the authority to declare stem cell research legal or illegal, valid or invalid. So it's disheartening to hear the media tell us that the President will decide "whether to allow stem cell research." Our society has become too focused on federal approaches to every perceived societal ill, while ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
government
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Morally complex issues require flexible approaches. The states have successfully dealt with the capital punishment issue for decades without an overriding federal law. The states also crafted their own abortion laws until 1973. Cloning and stem cell research issues likewise should be determined at the state level. Congress forgets that the Constitution grants only certain limited powers to federal lawmakers, reserving all other matters for the states under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, the constitutional approach would be to allow a mixture of moral standards, medical ethics, and local laws to determine the permissibility of cloning or stem cell research in each particular state. Unfortunately, however, neither political party has paid much attention to the Constitution during this debate, preferring instead to focus only on federal mandates and federal funding. No mention is made of states rights, even though state governments would do a much better job of reflecting local sentiment on these ethical issues.
government
Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas
06 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
First and foremost, we should insist that no federal funding be used for cloning or stem cell research. Most people don't realize that much of the cloning research performed to date has been funded with federal tax dollars. We can't know whether private money would have been spent in the same manner, because federal funding reduces the incentive for private companies to invest their own research dollars- especially when there is no guarantee that cloning technology will produce worthwhile results. Indeed, my own suspicion as a medical doctor is that the potential benefits of cloning have been overblown. So cloning almost certainly would not be the pressing issue it is today if the federal government had not become involved in the first place. Now, of course, Congress wants to ban the very thing it has been funding for years.
government
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Are the political beliefs of churchgoers the business of the IRS? Not according to North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, who recently introduced legislation that addresses the very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches that engage in conservative political activity. Specifically, the bill changes the tax code to clarify that no church or religious organization will lose its tax-exempt status because it participates in political campaigns or works to influence legislation. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector. The "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (HR 2357) will end this political favoritism and government interference with free speech. I'm pleased to report that the Act already has been sponsored by more that 50 members of Congress.
government
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine. The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never intended a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
government
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths. The collectivist left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. The collectivist left is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. People of faith tend to put their religious convictions ahead of any allegiance to the government, particularly when that government displays such hostility towards religion in general. In other words, the collectivists fear that some Americans' deeply held religious beliefs will stand in the way of the continued growth of secular big government. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
government
Legislation Needed to End the IRS Threat to Religious Freedom
13 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of "politics." We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.
government
What Happened to the Surplus?
20 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The congressional budget office recently released figures showing that the projected federal budget surplus for this year will be $75 billion less than originally forecast. Some economists and politicians believe the federal government could slip into deficit spending in 2002, and that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds could be threatened if revenues do not increase. Yet the facts about federal revenues and spending are often obscured in the debate, and the reality of government irresponsibility goes unreported.
government
What Happened to the Surplus?
20 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
First, any budget surplus is a single-year surplus only. The federal government remains trillions of dollars in debt, and interest payments on that debt represented a whopping 17% of all federal spending in 2000. So we should not kid ourselves that the federal government is fiscally stable simply because a booming economy greatly increased federal revenues over the last few years.
government
What Happened to the Surplus?
20 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Furthermore, even the single-year surpluses are illusory when we consider that the Clinton administration raided Social Security and Medicare funds to claim a balanced budget. In reality, even the record revenues of the 1990s could not keep pace with the voracious spending appetites of Congress and the administration. So Social Security and Medicare funds were moved around to cover the difference between what was collected and what was spent each year. These unconscionable raids on your retirement and health care dollars should never be allowed, yet the practice has become commonplace in Washington. The sad truth is that the so-called Social Security and Medicare trust funds do not really exist at all, and taxpayers have every reason to be anxious about the future viability of both systems. Many Americans still believe that the FICA portion of taxes withheld from their paychecks has been set aside for them, but in fact the government holds nothing but IOUs that depend completely on future revenues. Congress and the administration should be forced to keep Social Security and Medicare funds completely separate before ever declaring that the budget is balanced.
government
What Happened to the Surplus?
20 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
American voters should understand that Congress will always find a way to spend every last dollar sent to Washington. Remember, politicians get votes by promising everything to everyone, always at the expense of some other invisible taxpayers. Most politicians are unashamed of their unconstitutional pork-barrel spending, even highlighting during campaigns their "accomplishment" of spending more and more of your money. The federal government cannot maintain a budget surplus any more than an alcoholic can leave a fresh bottle of whiskey untouched in the cupboard. We must change our perception that a budget surplus is healthy for the economy, because every dollar parked in the federal treasury ultimately is spent by Congress. Those dollars could have been spent, saved, or invested in the private marketplace. With a spendthrift Congress, high federal revenues simply mean more federal spending. The only way to end the unconscionable waste is to drastically reduce federal revenues by cutting taxes. Voters need to regain control of the nation's finances by rejecting the big spenders at the ballot box.
government
Congressional Spending Threatens your Retirement
27 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 27 August 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Fortunately, however, the public has become aware of the unconscionable spending of their Social Security dollars. Congress finally passed "Lockbox" legislation last year, although many members undoubtedly jumped on the bandwagon only when public pressure and scrutiny became intense. I'm pleased that the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union named me as one of only seven in Congress who voted not to spend even one penny of Social Security funds on other government programs in 1999 and 2000.
government
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
03 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
In a truly free society, interest rates should be set by the market. The laws of supply and demand work better than any government bureaucrat in determining the correct cost of money, and without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution. The turbulent period we are entering may serve to remind Americans that the Fed cannot suspend the laws of economics. The key to lasting prosperity is a return to true private banking, where interest rates are set by the free market and dollars are backed by gold.
government
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
10 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 September 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Most liberty-minded Americans already know that the United Nations seeks to impose global government on all of us in the future, but now the organization is attempting to rewrite the past as well. Its recent week-long "World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" demonstrates just how broadly the UN views its own authority. Even though the stated goals of the conference- to map out an international strategy to combat racism and right the wrongs of the past- might seem laughably far-fetched, it's unsettling to think that the conference might be setting a precedent for more UN expansion and more phony international laws.
government
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
10 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 September 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Of course a serious rift developed at the conference between the Israelis and the Palestinians over a proposed condemnation of Israel's recent attacks on Arab settlers. Once again the United States was caught in the middle of this ancient conflict, both sides of which we already militarize with billions in foreign aid. If the UN really is so effective at promoting peace, why are some of its own member nations at war with one another? The Arab/Israeli conflict is a clear example of how global government not only fails to resolve localized conflicts, but instead makes them worse by angering one side.
government
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
10 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 September 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
I hope the highly publicized infighting at this latest conference will demonstrate how truly political the UN really is. Like all political organizations, the UN exists to serve the interests of certain parties at the expense of others. It is no more impartial or altruistic than the governments and people it now wants to condemn for the sins of the past. In fact, it acts precisely as the colonial powers did- by constantly expanding its global governance and waging war to conquer nations that resist its authority. The UN's plans for control over every nation on earth make the imperialists of past centuries pale in comparison.
government
Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism
10 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 September 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
More than anything, the UN is anti-American. It's happy to take our tax dollars and send our young people to fight undeclared wars under foreign command, but it does not respect our Constitution or our national sovereignty. More and more Americans now understand that the UN is not an instrument for creating world peace, but rather an emerging global government with an agenda of its own. This agenda truly is incompatible with the freedoms earned and enjoyed by millions of Americans.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
The airline business was not doing well even prior to the attacks. The slowing economy caused a big drop in business travel compared to recent years, while labor disputes and rising fuel costs have further reduced profits. The industry perhaps had too much capacity; takeovers and bankruptcies were likely among some carriers regardless of the recent disasters. As a strong advocate of free-market capitalism, I would never support government subsidies or bailouts for any industry simply because its companies could not survive in the marketplace.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
However, the airlines do have a valid claim for compensation for lost profits from the government-imposed shutdown in the days following the attacks. First, remember that the government has made airline security almost purely a federal matter. The FAA and federal law enforcement agencies are charged with preventing terrorism, and the airlines in effect are not expected nor allowed to provide security. Second, the federal government utterly failed to provide that security on September 11th. Third, the federal government shut down the airlines for several days, limited flights for several more days, and undoubtedly made millions of Americans reluctant to fly because of its massive security lapse. So the airlines have been actively harmed by the government, and deserve compensation limited to their lost profits resulting from the recent disasters.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Accordingly, I voted for the administration's requested $40 billion emergency relief bill largely because I believed some of the money should go to the airlines as economic victims of the government's security failure. However, any relief must not be in the form of a bailout that makes the airlines better off than they were before September 11th or solves their pre-existing financial problems. I cannot vote to support future legislation that simply gives taxpayer dollars to the airlines without reference to their actual losses caused by the terrorist attacks.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
I also cannot support proposed legislation that simply provides corporate welfare for the airlines at the behest of industry lobbyists. The federal government has no business insuring that massive CEO salaries remain in effect while rank-and-file employees face layoffs and loss of medical benefits. It would be outrageous for the government to give taxpayer dollars to the airlines without insisting that the money be used for basic operations and safety issues. This is no time for the government to be protecting executives at your expense.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
There are steps the government can take immediately to enhance airline security. It should undo regulations that have in effect disarmed pilots, and create a clear policy that permits airlines to establish their own rules regarding the arming of flight crews. Many commercial pilots once carried firearms, but federal rules now require that airlines go through a process of FAA-administered training classes that literally have never been conducted. It is ludicrous to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit. A federal air-marshall program may be needed in the short run, but ultimately we should insist that pilots and flight crews be allowed to defend themselves and their passengers so that any future hijacking attempts can be thwarted.
government
What Should Government Do for the Airlines?
24 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 September 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Congress also should consider privatizing more aspects of airline and airport security. Many security-intensive private industries do an excellent job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves.
government
Why Leave Pilots Defenseless?
01 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 01 October 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
In the days since the September 11th tragedy, hundreds of Americans have contacted my office concerning airline security. Most are angry and appalled that our planes were left so vulnerable to hijacking, especially considering the terrorists needed only simple boxcutting knives to carry out their depraved plan. The American people understandably are shocked at the ease with which the airplanes were overtaken and the defenseless pilots removed from the cockpit. The resounding message that people have conveyed to my office is very clear: the federal government should allow pilots to be armed.
government
America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
08 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The tragic events of September 11th have led to renewed calls for the expansion of global government. Terrorism, we are told, is an international problem- and therefore the United States must subordinate its interests and defer to the international community before taking military action. Of course it's certainly commendable that President Bush is trying to build an international coalition to fight terrorism, and we should be enormously grateful to our allies for their support during these trying times. Yet we must never allow our national sovereignty to be eroded in the name of international cooperation. We cannot forget that our Constitution grants Congress and the President complete authority to provide for national defense and declare war. International support for our efforts against Bin Laden is desirable, but we do not need anyone's permission to act. Remember, the terrorists attacked on American soil and killed mostly American citizens. No international coalition can or should attempt to dictate our response.
government
America Retains its Sovereign Right to Respond to Attacks
08 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 08 October 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
However, the United Nations already is working to position itself as the international body responsible for addressing terrorism. UN secretary-general Annan has called for a worldwide treaty against terrorism, as though suicidal terrorists would honor such a treaty! Many supporters of global government, even some in America, believe that the US must present its military plans to the UN for approval before we act. The underlying premise is obvious: according to the globalists, we are all part of one big nation- and America has no sovereign right to use military force unilaterally.
government
U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil
22 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The tragic events of the past month have forced both President Bush and Congress to reassess the priorities of our federal government. The obvious consensus is that we have to do a better job of protecting Americans against future acts of war here on our own soil. Indeed, the President has promised that his administration will use every available resource to fight the war on terrorism. Yet our most potent resource, the U.S. military, is spread far too thin around the world to adequately protect us from growing terrorist hostilities and the possibility of a full-scale war.
government
U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil
22 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Clearly our efforts in playing policeman to the world have failed to make us more secure. This does not mean that we are in any way responsible for the barbaric acts of Bin Laden or any other fanatical murders who hate the U.S. Yet we have no choice but to honestly assess the threats we now face here at home in the wake of these terrorist attacks. The most basic and important function of our government must be to provide national defense, and our overseas commitments directly interfere with the government's ability to defend you and your family.
government
Business as Usual in Washington?
29 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 October 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
We should remember that the policies of the American government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the government holds a monopoly on defining. America's heart and soul is more imbedded in our love for liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution.
government
Business as Usual in Washington?
29 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 October 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Here at home, many Americans are very concerned that the civil liberties we enjoy will suffer as the government demands new and broader powers in the name of providing security.
government
Business as Usual in Washington?
29 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 29 October 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Daniel Webster once warned: "Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly, in popular governments, under pretense of public safety."
government
U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
05 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today's brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today's dollars.
government
U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
05 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world's single largest donor to Afghanistan. Rest assured the money went straight to the Taliban, and not to the impoverished, starving residents that make up most of the population. Do we really expect a government as intolerant and anti-west as the Taliban to use our foreign aid for humane purposes? If so, we are incredibly naive; if not, we foolishly have been seeking to influence a government that regards America as an enemy.
government
U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
05 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the will of God." They weren't serious, of course. Although reliable economic data for Afghanistan is nearly impossible to find (there simply is not much of an economy), the reality is that opium is far and away the most profitable industry in the country. The Taliban was hardly prepared to give up virtually its only source of export revenue, any more than the demand for opium was suddenly going to disappear. If anything, Afghanistan's production of opium is growing. Experts estimate it has doubled since 1999; the relatively small country is now believed to provide the raw material for fully 75% of the world's heroin. How tragic that our government was willing to ignore Taliban brutality in its quest to find "victories" in the failed drug war.
government
U.S. Taxpayers send Billions to our Enemies in Afghanistan
05 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 05 November 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
U.S. taxpayers have a right to know exactly what we're getting for our foreign aid dollars. Have we helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan? Have we eased suffering there? Have we added to stability in the region? Have we earned the love or respect of the Afghan people? Have we made an ally of the Taliban government? The answer to all of these entirely reasonable questions is a resounding NO. Afghanistan is in chaos, its people starving, and its government is now an outright enemy of the United States. As we yet again find ourselves at war with forces we once funded and supported, the wisdom of foreign aid must be challenged. Peaceful relations and trade with every nation should be our goals, and the first step in accomplishing both should be to stop sending taxpayer dollars overseas.
government
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea
12 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 November 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the "new NATO" began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, "nation building." The new game was interventionism, not defense.
government
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.
government
The Feds at the Airport
19 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
After a few weeks of trivial arguments between congressional Republicans and Democrats, Congress voted last Friday to pass a very bad aviation bill that vastly expands the scope of the federal government. The two parties really had very little to argue about, as the only real issue was whether airport security would be fully nationalized sooner or later. Sadly, only a handful of Republicans (and no Democrats) abided by the Constitution and opposed this latest federal power grab. The bill grants the airlines billions of taxpayer dollars in new subsidies, imposes new taxes on travelers, and rewards the federal unions by creating thousands of new government jobs. What the bill does not do, however, is create innovative approaches to safety in the sky.
government
The Feds at the Airport
19 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 November 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember, several federal agencies failed to prevent the September 11th attacks, including the FBI, CIA, and FAA. Now Congress wants to pour billions into the creation of a new federal workforce at airports. No doubt the federal union bosses are excited at the prospect of thousands of new members, but there is no reason to believe that an expansion of the Transportation department will produce better results. The pattern is always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.
government
The Feds at the Airport
19 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 November 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security. The free market can and does produce excellent security in many industries (including most European airports). Many security-intensive industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies. In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.
government
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.
government
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
government
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
government
Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security?
26 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 26 November 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.
government
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
Suddenly the fix for terrorism seems to be secret military tribunals on American soil. Have so many Americans really lost confidence in our institutions? Well, I am happy to report that there is nothing broken about our system of justice. Executive orders authorizing secret trials on American soil, however, send a very different message to America and the world. That is a shame. It is one thing to hold a military-style trial for an enemy captured in conflict abroad, and I don't think many would argue otherwise. It is entirely different, though, when government asserts a right to take people off the streets of our own country and try them in secret- where in some cases death is to be the punishment.
government
Military Tribunals Put Our Justice System on Trial
03 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 December 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Finally, it is argued that only terrorists are to be subjected to these secret courts. But how do we decide someone is a terrorist before a trial? That sounds an awful lot like government deciding guilt before a show trial. More troubling, under recently passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded. A person can now be considered a terrorist for belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. How long before these "terrorists" are subject to secret trials?
government
Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
10 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 December 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Americans face an internal threat every bit as dangerous as foreign terrorists: the loss of domestic freedoms. Every 20th century crisis- two great wars and a decade-long economic depression- led to rapid expansions of the federal government. The cycle is always the same, with temporary crises used to justify permanent new laws, agencies, and programs.
government
Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
10 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 December 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The cycle is repeating itself. Congress has been scrambling to pass new legislation (and spend billions of your tax dollars) since September. Most of the news laws passed and dollars spent have nothing to do with defending our borders and cities against terrorist attacks. I have already written and spoken at length concerning the dangers to our civil liberties posed by the rush to pass new laws. I do not believe that our Constitution permits federal agents to monitor phones, mail, or computers without a warrant. I do not believe that government should eavesdrop on confidential conversations between attorneys and clients. I certainly do not believe "terrorism" should be defined so broadly that American citizens expressing dissent against their own government could be investigated and prosecuted as terrorists.
government
Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
10 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 10 December 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Remember, President Bush will not be in office forever. History demonstrates that the powers we give the federal government today will remain in place indefinitely. How comfortable are you that future Presidents won't abuse those powers? Politically-motivated IRS audits and FBI investigations have been used by past administrations to destroy political enemies. It's certainly possible that future executives could use their new surveillance powers in similarly unethical ways. The bottom line is that every American should be very concerned about the unintended consequences of policies promoted to fight an unending, amorphous battle against terrorism.
government
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.
government
Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
17 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 December 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.
government
Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
17 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 December 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC and to question its existence. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron's bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong.
government
Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
17 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 December 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market- not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level for the markets.
government
Stimulus or Spending?
24 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 December 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
It's important to cut through the rhetoric surrounding the stimulus debate over the last few weeks. The only real and lasting way to stimulate the economy is to reduce the amount of money government takes out of the private economy. The only way to do this is by cutting taxes. When taxes are reduced on individuals, they have more money to spend, save, or invest. When taxes are reduced on companies, they have more money to hire new employees, increase wages, or pay dividends to investors. Since all economic growth depends on private capital, the goal of any economic stimulus plan must be to leave more private capital in the hands of investors. When too much American wealth is tied up in government coffers, investment and job growth suffer. This is exactly what we have seen over the past 18 months- the Treasury "surplus" touted by the last administration actually represents a tax overcharge that dragged the economy down well before September 11th.
government
Stimulus or Spending?
24 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 December 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
These obvious economic realities are lost on most Washington politicians, who either fail to understand basic economics or choose to ignore the long-term harm they cause. Many in Congress fought to add billions in wasteful pork spending to the stimulus bill. Of course the lobbyists and the special interests love any new spending, because it "stimulates" certain industries and groups. It's easy for politicians to point to the benefits of such spending; for example, a government contract certainly creates new jobs, right? The fallacy, of course, is that we never see the economic growth that would have been created if those tax dollars had never been sent to Washington in the first place. Remember, the private marketplace is always far more efficient that any government program. You know better than the government how to spend your own money, and the same principle applies to the economy as a whole. Spending is spending, even when politicians call it "investing in America" or "stimulus." Government cannot simply spend us into prosperity.
government
Stimulus or Spending?
24 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 December 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Even when small tax cuts are discussed, there is misplaced debate over how best to structure things so Americans will be sure to spend the extra money and satisfy the supply-side believers. This social engineering has no place in our government. The only legitimate purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues needed to run the government. It's not the government's job to determine how you should use your money.
government
Stimulus or Spending?
24 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 24 December 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Liberty-minded Americans must continue their efforts to change the climate in Washington. It is still possible for tax cuts to be enacted in 2002; unfortunately, it appears the Senate won't act until the economy gets even worse. This is unfortunate, because a deeper recession could be avoided with some obvious steps. An elimination of corporate income taxes would immediately spur job growth. Despite the claims of the class warriors, corporate income taxes are paid by all of us in the form of higher prices for goods and services. A capital gains cut for individuals, coupled with a significant decrease in marginal tax rates, would cause a huge increase in investment. Such measures would represent real stimulus; our hardworking and entrepreneurial citizens would do the rest. The American people should not wait for a severe economic crisis before they demand that the government cut taxes and return needed capital to the legitimate private economy.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2002?
31 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 31 December 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The events of September 11th, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and economic troubles at home all serve to make 2002 a year of great uncertainty for America. The President already has warned the nation that 2002 will be "a war year," and economic recovery in the near future seems unlikely. It is easy for us to lose sight of the primary responsibility of our government during troubled times, because we naturally are anxious to have Washington eradicate terrorism and "fix" the economy. Yet we should not forget that peace and prosperity are best secured by a government that secures liberty for its citizens. The best formula for securing liberty is limited government at home and a noninterventionist foreign policy abroad.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2002?
31 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 31 December 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Nonintervention in the self-determination of the Afghan people should be our goal as that nation begins to rebuild its government. While we certainly were justified in our military actions against bin Laden and his network, we must not allow ourselves to engage in nation building in Afghanistan. Neither America nor the UN should seek to install a government, and we certainly should not allow ourselves to become involved in another endless UN "peacekeeping" operation similar to Kosovo. Our goal should be to get our troops out of the country as soon as possible and remain neutral toward the various factions still vying for power. The best solution may be for Afghanistan to break up into several countries based on ethnic and religious differences, with a Pashtun government in Kabul and the south and various mujahidin governments in the north. Regardless of the outcome, we must recognize that history teaches us time and again that we should not involve ourselves in the internal conflicts of foreign nations.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2002?
31 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 31 December 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Prosperity at home can only be achieved if we do not allow government to engage in the kind of runaway spending that marked the final months of 2001. Congress allowed terrorism to serve as an excuse for billions in special interest spending that had little or nothing to do with September 11th or fighting terrorism. The fiscal year 2002 budget, already bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending before September 11th, has become a grab bag for every group or industry seeking a handout. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies needlessly receive more funding than originally requested by President Bush. Dangerous foreign aid spending also grows next year, sending more of your tax dollars overseas to fund dubious regimes that often later become our enemies- the Taliban being a poignant example. Congress cannot continue to increase spending each year and expect tax revenues to keep pace. Deficit spending and tax increases will be the inevitable consequences. No reasonable person can argue that our current $2 trillion budget does not contain huge amounts of special interest spending that can and should be cut by Congress, especially when we are confronted with terrorist threats and an economic crisis.
government
Sane and Sensible Immigration Policies in the Wake of September 11th
07 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 07 January 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.
government
Argentine Default and the IMF
14 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 January 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Imagine a hypothetical bank run by a group of international executives operating behind closed doors, making decisions of enormous international importance. Imagine the bank consistently made high-risk loans to shaky governments with weak economies and currencies. Imagine it made those loans at substantially below-market interest rates, even though the risks involved warranted high interest rates. Imagine it knew that certain corporate interests would benefit directly from contracts awarded by the borrowing nations. Finally, imagine the bank schemed with governments around the world to have taxpayers foot the bill for the predictable losses stemming from bad loans. Surely no reasonable person would invest his money in such an institution, right?
government
Argentine Default and the IMF
14 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 January 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Why on earth would Congress fund such a lousy scheme? IMF supporters claim the organization exists to fight poverty in developing countries, but the evidence shows otherwise. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
government
Argentine Default and the IMF
14 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The recent financial collapse in Argentina provides a perfect example of the folly of IMF "assistance." Although the Argentine economy has been in serious trouble for several years, IMF loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% kept pouring into the country. According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this "continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF's generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster." Yet unless Congress acts this year, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to pay for even more bad loans to equally unstable countries.
government
Argentine Default and the IMF
14 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 January 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. There is no justification for taxing working Americans so the federal government can bail out foreign leaders and Wall Street. Participation in the IMF costs us billions every year, billions that should be returned to taxpayers. Hopefully the Argentine debacle will cause Congress to rethink our foolish participation in the IMF.
government
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Many Americans already have grave concerns about the loss of sovereignty inherent in our participation in global government organizations like the UN and the WTO (World Trade Organization). Few understand, however, the extent to which Congress already capitulates to the globalists when it writes the laws that affect all of us.
government
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America's Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.
government
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
In truth, however, the problem was not the lack of government involvement with Enron, but rather the close relationship between Enron and government. Enron in fact was deeply involved with the federal government throughout the 1990s, both through its lobbying efforts and as a recipient of large amounts of corporate welfare.
government
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.
government
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.
government
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.
government
Enron: Under-Regulated or Over-Subsidized?
28 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 January 2002 verse 9 ... Cached
This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. Yet we should not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. We certainly should not allow the Enron collapse to be characterized as a failure of capitalism or free markets, because the opposite is true. The Enron collapse provides an example of how government does so much to prevent the market from working properly in the first place.
government
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.
government
Why Is There So Much Money In Politics?
04 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 February 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.
government
Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty?
11 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 February 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
In the area of personal liberty, we face some very real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been threatened and the Constitution has been flaunted. Our government has grown with each national crisis, curtailing many freedoms in the process. The current war on terrorism has no easily defined enemy, and no real end in sight. This means that a return to normalcy with regard to our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive government surveillance, rubber-stamped search warrants, and the loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.
government
Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty?
11 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 February 2002 verse 10 ... Cached
The Roman poet, Horace, spoke of adversity more than two thousand years ago: "Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of prosperity would have lain dormant." It is time for liberty-minded Americans to display their talents in opposing the political trends of the day. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when times are tough and a false government security blanket beckons.
government
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
"Reform" should mean a change for the better- an improvement over the way things are. In Washington, however, words often represent the opposite of their plain meaning. Can you name one government reform that actually improved anything? How many times has Social Security been reformed? How about public education? Health care? Let's not forget the IRS! In Washington, "reform" always means more spending, more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucrats, and less freedom.
government
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The injury to our Constitution cannot be overstated. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew that government should stay out of the political process. Furthermore, the First amendment clearly prohibits government interference with the expression of political views. Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus explains exactly how campaign restrictions are government censorship:
government
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
"By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign (as the campaign reform bill does with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign), these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government 'censorial power over the people,' instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government."
government
Don't Believe the Hype- "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests
18 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 February 2002 verse 9 ... Cached
The corruption inherent in our big-government political system is as repugnant to me as it is to you. Yet none of us should believe for one second that the parties in Washington intend to clean up the system and make themselves less corruptible. In truth, the legislation passed last week will only serve to deny a voice to average Americans, while ensuring the reelection of the fat cats. Name recognition and incumbency are huge advantages in politics. Incumbent politicians benefit when challengers cannot raise or spend the amounts needed to unseat them.
government
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
I applaud the proponents of vouchers for having the initiative to try something new that challenges the federal government’s virtual monopoly on education. It’s admirable to apply a market approach to schools. Forty years of Great Society federal programs have done nothing but make our public schools worse. Fifty years ago, before the federal government became involved in public education, American grammar and high schools were the best in the world. Students faced a demanding curriculum of math, hard sciences, geography, literature, western civilization, spelling and grammar, Latin, and useful trades. They even learned American history, which is sadly lacking in today’s schools. Teachers were respected, and free to enforce discipline without fear of lawsuits or being undermined by school administrators and parents.
government
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
However, the voucher debate really ignores the more important question of whether public schools should be run by federal or local government. The Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education; Article I grants Congress no authority to create, fund, or regulate schools at all. Therefore, under the 10th Amendment public education should be purely a state and local matter. This means Congress should not be taxing you to fund a huge federal education bureaucracy that exercises dictatorial control over curriculum and standards nationwide. Those tax dollars should be left with parents and local voters, who can best decide how to allocate precious education resources. Public schools should be funded at the local level with local tax dollars, where waste is minimized and accountability is greatest. The failed federal system of public school funding has become a bureaucratic black hole, where the majority of tax dollars never reach the classroom.
government
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The Supreme Court, like Congress, should simply follow the Constitution. The Constitution allows states and local governments to decide for themselves whether to have a voucher program. It does not, however, allow the federal government to fund, regulate, or control those voucher programs. The emphasis on local control established in the Constitution is especially important when it comes to education, and it is no coincidence that our schools have declined as federal control has increased. It’s time to end the 40-year Washington stranglehold on education by returning control -which means returning tax dollars- to parents and local school systems. The best immediate approach is to give parents a federal tax credit for amounts spent on education. Ultimately, however, we can only resurrect our public schools by following the Constitution and ending the federal education monopoly.
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
The Truth About Government Debt
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The bottom line is that our federal government almost always manages to spend more than it brings in each year in revenues. This is particularly troubling when we consider that taxes take more out of the legitimate private economy (as a percentage of GDP) than at any time since World War II. Still, Treasury Secretary O'Neill recently asked Congress to raise the "debt ceiling," which is based on a federal law that sets a limit on the total amount of debt the US government can have. The current debt ceiling is about $5.9 trillion (roughly the current national debt); O'Neill wants it raised to $6.7 trillion. The reason is that Congress is expected to increase spending even faster than usual over the next few years due to the war on terror.
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. We last raised it during the Clinton era, despite that administration's claims that the budget was balanced each year. This can be refuted quite simply, because the national debt continued to rise throughout the 1990s. Obviously, if federal spending truly was being outpaced by revenues, the debt would not have increased. So how did the Clinton administration make it appear that annual spending did not exceed annual revenues? Mostly by using Social Security revenues to cover the difference, even though Social Security taxes are supposed to be held in a trust fund and not spent on other federal programs. Yet few Americans know that their Social Security taxes are never segregated or saved by the federal government, but rather spent immediately as general funds. Your Social Security benefits are nothing more than IOUs that are completely dependent on future revenues.
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Federal Reserve chairman Greenspan recently endorsed a political trick to make the debt seem smaller simply by redefining those IOUs. The current law treats certain government obligations such as Social Security payments and veteran pensions as debts, meaning they must be included within the permitted debt ceiling. Of course they are debts, just like any other bill that will have to be paid in the future. Greenspan would have us redefine these obligations as "intergovernment accounts," which magically changes them from debts to "accrued liabilities." This semantic shift would free up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing. Congress could even use this approach to lower the ceiling and claim a victory for fiscal responsibility while still borrowing more! The reality, of course, is that those old debts will still exist, but we won't have to think about them for a few more years.
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. After all, individuals often want to expand by starting families and buying houses, while businesses want to expand by hiring more employees and increasing their capacity. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private sector business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious "services." Any government that consumes 40% of the most productive economy in the world and still can't balance its books is a government that vastly overspends. A cursory examination of the annual appropriations bills reveals incredible amounts of unconstitutional, wasteful, and truly unnecessary spending. This uncontrolled spending allows government to grow far beyond its proper constitutional parameters, while also threatening the very solvency of future generations. So I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn't matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much is leading us to ruin. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.
government
The Truth about Government Debt
11 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly-paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with fat pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by the politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however- and nobody ever looks back and says, "Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago." For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We should hardly be surprised that such a government racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will someday have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.
government
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports was disappointing to free trade advocates. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of "fair trade" when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.
government
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the World Trade Organization was supposed to bring to global trade? The European Union and other steel-producing nations are preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect their own steel industries, setting the stage for a potential global trade war. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re seeing instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
government
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
It’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.
government
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The UN is meeting this week in Monterrey, Mexico to discuss exactly such a tax. The meeting is billed as a "Conference on Financing for Development," which is a nice way of saying it’s a conference to consider the best ways to shake down rich nations for money. UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations- a lot more- simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
government
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us- laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
government
UN Planting the Seeds for a Coming Global Tax
25 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The Bush administration thus far has been firmly opposed to any global UN taxes, and the State department has officially voiced our opposition. We should all be very thankful for that, because another administration might not have had the same response. It would be a mistake, however, to think the UN tax idea will go away. Some usually sensible nations like Britain and Germany support the concept, and the drumbeat for global government in general has been growing louder since September 11th. Hopefully, this latest bogus UN conference will make more Americans aware of exactly what the organization really intends, which is the imposition of worldwide income taxes. We need to focus the nation on how truly anti-American the UN is, to generate public support for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the organization. The history of the past 50 years clearly shows that our national sovereignty is incompatible with participation in the UN.
government
A Court of No Authority
08 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 April 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
ICC proponents claim that the court will address only "crimes against humanity" and "crimes of aggression." Remember, however, the UN continually has expanded its role in the decades since World War II. When the UN was created, we were assured it would never become a global government, never establish laws, never employ military forces, and never undermine national statehood- yet it has done precisely all of those things. Why should we believe that the ICC will not similarly seek to expand its jurisdiction? Already there have been discussions about the court’s ability to prosecute far more ordinary- and domestic- criminal activity. The inherently political nature of the court will insure that the definition of "aggression" expands to apply to the actions of those in politically disfavored nations. Are we really so naive that we believe American soldiers will not one day be prosecuted for their actions in wartime?
government
Are Your Taxes Too Low?
22 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 April 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
You may be tired of thinking about and paying taxes after April 15th, but many in Washington think you’re not paying enough. In fact, the preposterous idea that Americans are undertaxed is accepted as truth by a significant number of the members of Congress. These members believe today’s taxpayers are perpetrating an injustice by not paying more taxes, and that most of the money you make presumptively belongs to the government. Since your money really belongs to the government, tax cuts represent a government "giveaway."
government
Are Your Taxes Too Low?
22 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 April 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
This mindset revealed itself last week during a vote on the House floor. At issue were the exceedingly modest tax cuts passed by Congress last year, which the Senate modified to expire in 10 years. The bill voted upon would remove the expiration date and make the cuts permanent (at least until Congress tries to raise taxes again). This simple measure was stridently opposed by almost 200 members, many of whom subjected us to lectures about the "irresponsibility" of not revisiting tax cuts often to make sure the government has plenty of money. These lawmakers (apparently) really believe taxes have been cut to the bone and government starved to its limits.
government
Are Your Taxes Too Low?
22 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 April 2002 verse 9 ... Cached
An income tax would be wholly unnecessary if Congress restrained itself and spent your tax dollars only on legitimate constitutional functions like national defense. Remember, the federal government operated for more than 120 years without an income tax, using excise taxes to raise necessary revenues. Rather than squabbling about tiny changes in the existing tax code, Congress ought to be drastically reducing spending and scrapping the incomprehensible tax code altogether.
government
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The months since September 11th have been unsettling for our nation. The twin specters of war and economic recession weigh heavily on the national consciousness. The Middle East conflict intensifies, with no peaceful end in sight. Government intervention- in the economy, in the private affairs of citizens, and in the internal affairs of foreign nations- has accelerated. Federal spending is growing wildly, and annual deficits will be larger than expected in the coming years. Despite any rhetoric otherwise, tax cuts are off the table in this new era of war funding and unchallenged government growth. As one prominent Washington Democrat put it, "The era of limited government is over."
government
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
This rapid growth in the size and power of the federal government will have very serious consequences for America if the trend is not reversed. Freedom and prosperity cannot coexist with socialism and endless war. Yet socialism and endless war are exactly what most in Washington are promoting.
government
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 9 ... Cached
The Karzai government will fail, and the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan eventually will end.
government
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 21 ... Cached
Erosion of civil liberties will continue as our government responds to fears of terrorist acts by making generous use of unconstitutional powers obtained through the Patriot Act.
government
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 23 ... Cached
Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the federal government. This will satisfy both the liberals and conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.
government
Pilots vs. Bureaucrats
06 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 06 May 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
Legislation I introduced last September simply repeals current Transportation department regulations that prevent airlines from training and arming pilots. This approach puts the decision to arm pilots directly in the hands of the private individuals and companies that actually fly and own the aircraft that are at risk from hijacking. The weaker legislation already passed by Congress allows the Transportation department to establish and run a certification program for pilots wanting to carry guns, which requires active participation by the foot-dragging Mineta. Clearly he will do everything possible to prevent implementation of any government-run armed pilots program.
government
Pilots vs. Bureaucrats
06 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 06 May 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Pilots, airlines, and understandably nervous travelers deserve more from the federal government. No amount of airport security can guarantee that a terrorist will never again board a domestic flight with a weapon. Since armed marshals can't be on every flight, pilots are the last line of defense against future terrorist acts in the skies. Why on earth does our government insist on disarming the same pilots we otherwise trust with our lives?
government
No Taxpayer Funds for Nation-Building in Afghanistan
27 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 27 May 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Perhaps the legislation Congress passed last week should have been named the "Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act," because it essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I doubt we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years, so maybe we should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a "coordinator." This coordinator essentially has the task of making sure the new Afghan government meets with our approval; never mind what ordinary Afghan wants. We say we want the Afghans to freely and democratically elect their own leaders, but only if we approve of the choices. In effect, we want to install a new government of our choosing.
government
No Taxpayer Funds for Nation-Building in Afghanistan
27 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 27 May 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The President promised that we would not engage in nation-building in Afghanistan, and he did not sponsor or seek support for the bill passed by Congress. Yet when we fill a nation’s empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose our standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs.
government
Congress Spends, Future Generations Pay the Bills
03 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 03 June 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
This new debt directly threatens your Social Security retirement dollars. Americans are starting to learn that there is no Social Security trust fund, that Social Security tax revenues are spent immediately to pay benefits to current retirees. This means the Treasury holds nothing but IOUs promising to pay your benefits when you retire. These IOUs are debts owed to the American people, and the more the federal government borrows, the greater the chance it will default on those debts. In other words, if the government borrows too much, it may not have enough revenues in the future to both pay Social Security benefits and service its other debts. If you are depending on Social Security to fund or supplement your retirement years, you should be very concerned about any increase in the national debt.
government
Congress Spends, Future Generations Pay the Bills
03 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 03 June 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
Some Washington pundits, including many supply-side economists, claim that federal debt really does not matter. These pundits want government to use debt as a financial tool, much like a large business might. They argue that the only real issue is whether the debt can be serviced. This argument ignores a critical distinction, however: expansion is a proper goal for business, but not for government. Businesses service debt by increasing their revenues in the legitimate private economy, while government can service increasing debt only by increasing taxes or printing more money.
government
Congress Spends, Future Generations Pay the Bills
03 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 03 June 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Of course debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for families and businesses. Yet when government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and members of Congress- never have to pay the bills. Instead, they enjoy the political benefits of delivering endless unconstitutional pork programs to their constituents and special interests, while future generations of taxpayers are stuck with the bill. It is time for voters to think about their grandchildren and stop rewarding spendthrift politicians with 97% reelection rates. Debt does matter, and it’s cowardly to ask future generations to pay for our extravagance.
government
Gold, Dollars, and Federal Reserve Mischief
10 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 10 June 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. This expansion costs money, and the big-government politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now produce all of the world’s major currencies.
government
Gold, Dollars, and Federal Reserve Mischief
10 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 10 June 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
America once enjoyed a stable dollar backed by gold deposits, a "gold standard" system. This system gradually was undermined throughout the last century, until President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Fed has employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the total amount of dollars in circulation (the money supply), and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
government
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.
government
Gold, Dollars, and Federal Reserve Mischief
10 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 10 June 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Brilliant Austrian school of economics scholar Murray Rothbard asked a seemingly complex question in the title of his essay: "What has Government Done to our Money?" The answer turns out to be pretty simple: Government consistently debases our money. How and why it debases our money has everything to do with politics, and nothing to do with the laws of economics.
government
A Stay of Execution for the Death Tax
17 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 17 June 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Last year the House debated an outright repeal of the tax as part of the Bush tax plan. Although liberal members prevented the passage of a immediate repeal, a slow ten-year phaseout compromise bill did pass in both the House and Senate chambers. Incredibly, however, the Senate added a provision that would cause the tax rules to revert back to the current system after the ten year period. In other words, the death tax will return after 2011! So a taxpayer dying in 2010 would pay no estate tax, while his unfortunate neighbor dying the next year would get a whopping bill from the IRS. The accountants and tax attorneys might support this crazy system, but it creates an estate planning nightmare for American families. Some doctors even warn that it could give elderly people a morbid incentive to time their deaths out of concern for their loved ones. Yet although the House recently voted to make the death tax repeal permanent, the aforementioned 44 senators decided the government should remain the unwelcome heir to millions of American estates.
government
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.
government
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony "incorporation" doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.
government
What does the First Amendment Really Mean?
01 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 01 July 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
I previously introduced legislation entitled "The First Amendment Restoration Act" to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.
government
Securing the Homeland?
08 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 08 July 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Evidence that Saudi Arabia fosters and promotes terrorism is overwhelming. The majority of al-Qaeda members are Saudis, as were most of the September 11th hijackers. Indeed, most of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo hold Saudi passports. This is hardly surprising, as the nation is home to the radical Islamic Wahabbi sect- a sect that calls for the wholesale destruction of America and the West. The Saudi government clearly has played a role in incubating and spreading radical anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, yet the administration continues to treat the Saudis as allies, largely because of our oil dependency. Congress should demand an end to this hypocrisy, and the administration should demand that Saudi Arabia stop harboring our enemies while claiming to be our friend.
government
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 1 ... Cached
What About Government Accountability?
government
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Accounting scandals dominated the headlines last week, and publicity-hungry politicians from both the House and Senate enjoyed acting self-righteous while grilling WorldCom executives. However, the message that Congress will clamp down on corporate accounting practices rings hollow with at least one journalist. Neil Cavuto from Fox News recently offered a very important question that desperately needs to be asked of Congress: "Who the heck are YOU to judge? Given the incredible fiscal mismanagement that pervades the federal government, Congress is "throwing stones from a very big glass house," as Mr. Cavuto puts it. It’s refreshing to hear Mr. Cavuto point out the hypocrisy of politicians standing in judgment of executives whose misdeeds pale in comparison to their own reckless spending.
government
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.
government
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!
government
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
None of the free-market restraints against financial mismanagement apply to government. The federal government doesn’t need to raise money by meeting a market demand or raising investment capital- it simply takes what it wants through taxes, which can be raised at will. It never has to operate profitably or efficiently; witness Amtrak and the Postal Service. It also has no incentive to cut costs. In fact, federal agencies scramble to spend every last penny of their budgets to justify more the next year. There is no stock price to worry about, and nobody tracks government "performance" against earlier years. Nobody ever gets fired. Simply put, the money is not hard-earned, so it’s not well-spent.
government
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.
government
What About Government Accountability?
15 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 15 July 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
Of course Congress could clean up its financial mess, but ultimately it is voters who must demand accountability for their tax dollars. Remember that you give government at all levels nearly half of everything you earn. If you invested that much into a private company, don’t you think you would keep a close eye on it and demand accountability as a shareholder? The only thing we know for sure about the federal budget is that it will go up each year unless and until voters remove the politicians who insist on taxing, spending, and borrowing us to death.
government
Monitor thy Neighbor
22 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.
government
Monitor thy Neighbor
22 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Now the Justice department wants to extend the new investigative powers to private citizens. It recently unveiled Operation TIPS- Terrorism Information and Prevention System- as part of President Bush’s Citizen Corps initiative. The goal is to enlist thousands or even millions of Americans to act as spies for the government, reporting suspicious activity to officials using a handy toll-free hotline. The Justice department especially hopes to enlist mailmen, delivery drivers, plumbers, gas-meter readers, and the like, as they have access to private homes and businesses in their daily work. As usual, the war on terror is offered as justification for this proposal.
government
Monitor thy Neighbor
22 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you’re not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious- that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society- invites denunciations and sharp reminders that "we’re at war." Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on terror to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy.
government
The Homeland Security Non-Debate
29 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Late Friday evening, after only a few short hours of debate, Congress passed legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security. The new department represents the biggest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, and potentially the single biggest expansion of the federal government in our history. Over 175,000 federal employees will be part of the new DHS, and if history is any guide, it will take decades to get all of them working together even marginally. In fact, some estimate that the process of buying and leasing new offices, moving existing offices, and getting all of the new DHS personnel using the same computer and phone systems could take twenty years. So much for streamlining the intelligence gathering process.
government
Will Congress Debate War with Iraq?
05 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 05 August 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
War is war, no matter what we call it. When we bomb another country, when we send troops, planes, and warships to attack it, we are at war. Calling war a "police action" or a "peacekeeping mission" does not change the reality. War constitutionally cannot be waged by executive order- the President’s status as Commander-in-Chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war precisely because the founders wanted the most representative branch of government, not an imperial President, to make the grave decision to send our young people into harm’s way. We owe it to those young people and the Constitution to have a sober congressional debate before we initiate war in Iraq.
government
Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
12 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
You may have seen minor media coverage last week focusing on the economic problems in South America, particularly Uruguay and Brazil. The U.S. Treasury, acting through the Exchange Stabilization Fund and without congressional approval, gave Uruguay $1.5 billion to ease the impact of a bank shutdown. While $1.5 billion barely raises an eyebrow in Washington anymore, and scarcely attracts media attention, this latest bailout provides a telling example of the real priorities of our federal government.
government
Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
12 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The truth is that our government officials are not particularly concerned about economic hardship in Uruguay. Uruguay, like many South American countries, is economically unstable because of its government’s bad policies. Our loans and bailouts simply keep their unstable system running a little longer, while miring the Uruguayan people further in debt. We’re not doing the people any favors. On the contrary, our "aid" just makes the inevitable collapse all the more serious.
government
Your Taxes Fund South American Bailout
12 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 12 August 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
What a shame that our government continues to fund risky overseas bailouts and unconstitutional foreign aid, even as our own nation faces serious financial problems here at home. Congress has lapsed into uncontrolled deficit spending, and billions more will be spent creating the Department of Homeland Security and funding an unwise war in Iraq. The private economy sputters along with little or no growth, while the stock market bubble loses more air almost daily. The pension and retirement plans of millions of Americans have suffered heavy losses, and the very solvency of Social Security is threatened by the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. Meanwhile, our military families and veterans are allowed to live in poverty. In the midst of all these problems at home, how in the world can we justify another nickel for foreign bailouts?
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 1 ... Cached
Does Government Run the Economy?
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
President Bush received some criticism last week after holding an economic forum in Waco. The forum was intended to bring business and civic leaders together with the President to discuss America’s economic problems, but the press dismissed the whole affair as nothing more than a photo-op for the President with a hand-picked friendly audience. The message from the pundits was clear: the President is all talk, but we need action by the government to restore prosperity.
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
So what exactly would critics have the President do to "fix" the economy? Presumably they believe he should propose some new laws and regulations, thereby protecting us from greedy CEOs and the risks of the free market. The belief is that government brings about economic prosperity, and that the current economic malaise represents a failure by government to act. In other words, the government somehow caused the economy to sour through inattention and neglect.
government
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.
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
But should government run the economy in a free society? Remember, there is a simple description for government control of the economy: socialism. America, however, was founded as a capitalist country. The Constitution grants Congress exceedingly limited regulatory and tax powers, because the founders were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown. So they created a strictly limited government, which allowed freedom and capitalism to flourish.
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
In a capitalist economy, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and prohibiting force and fraud. Because our modern federal government has strayed so far from its limited constitutional powers, it controls the economy far more than the founders intended. As a result, our economy is becoming more and more socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, and price controls, along with Fed manipulation of interest rates and the money supply, all represent socialist government intervention in the economy. No matter what the Democrats or Republicans want to call it, socialism is socialism. We should have the honesty to identify exactly what is being advocated when some call for even more government control of the economy.
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
Centralized economic planning is disastrous for every society that employs it. From the former Soviet Union to present day China, planned economies have produced little but hardship and bloodshed. The reason for this is simple human nature, because individuals have little incentive to produce when the fruits of their labors are stripped from them. Both history and economic theory demonstrate conclusively that government-run economies lower the standard of living for everyone except government elites charged with the "planning." By contrast, capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone in a society. More importantly, free market capitalism is the only moral economic system because it is the only free economic system. Socialism, communism, and authoritarianism- variants on the same collectivist theme- all use immoral government force to control the economic lives of individuals.
government
Does Government Run the Economy?
19 August 2002 Texas Straight Talk 19 August 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
If we ever hope to enjoy real and lasting prosperity in this country, we must redefine our view of the proper role of government. It is tempting during difficult times to demand that the government "do something," but a free society is defined by what its government does not do.
government
The Case against War in Iraq
09 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
There are clear philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.
government
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Meanwhile, Russia and France have made it known that they might be persuaded to support our war effort if the American government guarantees payment for commercial debts owed them by Iraq. This amounts to nothing less than buying allies. Incredibly, the U.S. Treasury may make good on Saddam Hussein’s bad debts, with American taxpayers settling his unpaid bills! Who can possibly believe these kinds of unholy deals represent an acceptable foreign policy?
government
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The root of the problem is our insistence on accepting the concept of one-world globalist government while pursuing unilateralist goals. We participate in globalist institutions like the UN, sign globalist treaties, and send our sons and daughters to fight in globalist wars that have nothing to do with our national interest. Yet we also demand the right to act unilaterally when it suits us, to set all policy in the global arena, and to exclude ourselves from many of the international rules.
government
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds. We give up our sovereignty, but fail to win any real allies. We pay all the bills, risk the lives of our young people, and invite UN meddling in our domestic laws, yet still we sow the seeds of discontent and future hostility with the world community. All because we have abandoned our Constitution and the founder’s ideal of noninterventionism in favor of globalism. What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
government
Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?
23 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him "dead or alive." And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose. We’re preoccupied with an invasion of Iraq, which actually will benefit bin Laden by removing a secular regime led by his enemy Saddam Hussein. This vacuum may well lead to a more fundamentalist Kurd government in Iraq that aligns itself with al Qaida.
government
Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?
23 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.
government
Dump UNESCO!
30 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 30 September 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."
government
Legislation for our Military Families and Veterans
21 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Similarly, Congress recently passed a resolution calling for a change in veteran’s disability payments. Currently, retired soldiers may only receive either their military pension or military disability benefits- not both. Nonmilitary government retirees and private sector employees, however, do receive both standard pensions and disability pay. This is very unfair to military retirees, who deserve pay for both their career work and the separate incident that caused their disability. Last week’s vote moves us closer to ending this injustice.
government
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
28 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The wanton and unpredictable nature of the sniper shootings has reinforced an uncomfortable feeling that many Americans first experienced the morning of September 11th: namely, that the government cannot protect you. No matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm.
government
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
28 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
For many this is a sobering thought, because we have come to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. We should remember, however, that we hardly would want to live in a rigid totalitarian society completely free of danger. This nation was founded on principles of self-reliance, but we’ve allowed ourselves to become far too dependent on government. Perhaps the only good that can come out of these senseless and tragic killings is an emerging understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
government
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
The sniper suspects who terrorized the Washington DC area for most of October have been arrested, but a controversy over who should prosecute them has ensued. Virginia, Maryland, and Alabama have already filed murder charges, raising the likelihood of a jurisdictional battle between them. Late last week, however, the federal government also filed criminal charges against the two men, accusing them of a plot to extort $10 million. The extortion charge is based on a note the killers left at the scene of one of the murders demanding money. Attorney General Ashcroft has made it clear he thinks the feds, rather than any of the states involved, should try the case.
government
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia all have valid claims for prosecuting the case, because the sniper and his accomplice committed murders in all four jurisdictions. Prosecutors from each understandably want to bring these killers to justice on behalf of their citizens. After all, it was the people of these states who were truly terrorized for nearly a month. Of course a federal court may be needed to decide which state prevails in the inevitable jurisdictional battle, especially since the availability of the death penalty varies between them. But the rush to have a federal court try these two men reminds us that the federal government cares very little about states’ rights. The feds appear to be more interested in hijacking a high-profile prosecution for their own benefit than allowing the states to enforce their own laws.
government
Who Should Prosecute the Snipers?
04 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The trend toward federalizing state criminal matters mirrors the rise in federal domination over the states themselves. As the federal government grows, so grows the power of the federal court system- at the expense of state sovereignty and the 10th amendment. As a result, the people of the various states have lost much of their voice about how criminals ought to be treated. The sniper case provides us with an opportunity to reassert the power of states to bring criminals to justice, while rejecting the notion that the federal government must be involved simply because the sniper murders generated national interest.
government
Honoring our Military Veterans
11 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
It’s easy to talk about honoring veterans and their sacrifices on a national holiday. Yet so often the rhetoric obscures the reality that the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars funding so many unconstitutional programs, but it fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.
government
The Homeland Security Monstrosity
18 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Back then, congressional hearings on the matter lasted two years before President Truman finally signed legislation. Even after this lengthy deliberation, however, organizational problems with the new department lasted more than 40 years! What do we expect from a huge bureaucracy conceived virtually overnight, by a Congress that didn’t even read the bill that creates it? Surely more deliberation was appropriate before establishing a giant new federal agency with 170,000 employees!
government
The Homeland Security Monstrosity
18 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
When the Homeland Security department first was conceived, some congressional leaders and administration officials outrageously told a credulous rank-and-file Congress that the new department would be "budget neutral." The agency simply would be a reorganization of existing federal employees, we were told, and would not increase the federal budget. In fact, the agency was touted as increasing efficiency, rather than expanding federal power. Of course the original 32 page proposal sent over by the White House quickly grew to 282 pages in House committees, ending up at more than 500 pages in the final version voted on last week- with a $3 billion price tag just for starters. The sheer magnitude of the bill, and the technical complexity of it, makes it impossible for anyone to understand completely. Rest assured that the new department represents a huge increase in the size and scope of the federal government that will mostly serve to spy on the American people. Can anyone, even the most partisan Republican, honestly say with a straight face that the Department of Homeland Security does not expand the federal government?
government
Homeland Security is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
25 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.
government
Homeland Security is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
25 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation’s GDP, the highest level since World War II- and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power- your tax dollars- as unlimited.
government
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 1 ... Cached
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
government
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.
government
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The possibility that the federal government could order vaccines is real. Provisions buried in the 500-page homeland security bill give federal health bureaucrats virtually unchecked power to declare health emergencies. Specifically, it gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services- in my view one of the worst of all federal agencies- power to declare actual or potential bioterrorist emergencies; to administer forced "countermeasures," including vaccines, to individuals or whole groups; and to extend the emergency declaration indefinitely. These provisions mirror those found in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, a troubling proposal that was rejected by most state legislatures last year. That Act would have given state governors broad powers to suspend civil liberties and declare health emergencies. Yet now we’re giving virtually the same power to the Secretary of HHS. Equally troubling is the immunity from civil suit granted to vaccine manufacturers in the homeland security bill, which potentially could leave individuals who get sick from a bad batch of vaccines without legal recourse.
government
Government Vaccines- Bad Policy, Bad Medicine
09 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 09 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Politics and medicine don’t mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship. A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we’re moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive, but what kind of health care they receive at all.
government
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
The buzzwords in Washington concerning Iraq these days are "regime change," which in a sense is surprisingly honest. It means the upcoming Gulf War II will not be about protecting Kuwait or stemming Iraqi aggression. The pretenses have been discarded, and now we’ve simply decided Saddam must go. We seem to have very little idea, however, what a post-Saddam Iraq will look like. We should expect another lesson in nation-building, with American troops remaining in the country indefinitely while billions of our tax dollars attempt to prop up a new government.
government
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course any of these groups will be happy to use American military power to remove Hussein, and will form a short-term alliance with the Pentagon accordingly. Their opposition to the current government, however, should not be mistaken for support for America or its policies. As we’ve seen so many times in the past, the groups we support in foreign conflicts rarely remain grateful for long.
government
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are perfect examples of our onetime "allies" who accepted our help yet failed to do our bidding for long. Both gladly welcomed American money, weapons, and military training during the 1980s. With bin Laden we sought to frustrate the Soviet advance into Afghanistan, and many Pentagon hawks undoubtedly felt vindicated when the Russian army retreated. Yet twenty years later, bin Laden is a rabid American-hating madman whose operatives are armed with our own Stinger missiles. Similarly, we supported the relatively moderate Hussein in the hopes of neutralizing a radically fundamentalist Iran. Yet this military strengthening of Iraq led to its invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent military involvement in the gulf. Today the Hussein regime is belligerently anti-American, and any biological or chemical weapons he possesses were supplied by our own government.
government
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The practical consequences of meddling in the domestic politics of foreign nations are clearly disastrous. We should remember, however, that it is also wrong in principle to interfere with the self-determination rights of foreign peoples. Consider how angry Americans become when Europeans or Mexicans merely comment on our elections, or show a decided preference for one candidate. We rightfully feel that our politics are simply none of the world’s business, yet we seem blind to the anger created when we use military force to install governments in places like Iraq. The unspoken question is this: What gives us the right to decide who governs Iraq or any other foreign country? Apparently our own loss of national sovereignty, as we surrender more and more authority to organizations like the UN and WTO, mirrors our lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations.
government
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.
government
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.
government
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.
government
What Really Divides Us?
23 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 23 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
government
The Great Global Social Security Giveaway?
06 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 January 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
As we ring in the new year, dark clouds are gathering over our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. In December, the press reported on a looming deal between the administration and the government of Mexico which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The centerpiece of the agreement would be a so-called "totalization," which would mean that even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.
government
The Great Global Social Security Giveaway?
06 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 January 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
government
The Great Global Social Security Giveaway?
06 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 January 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.
government
Conscription is Collectivism
13 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Military needs aside, however, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the state. To them, the American government is America. Patriotism means working for the benefit of the state. On a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
Government Policy and False Prosperity
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
“Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.” Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
President Bush’s plan to end the double taxation of stock dividends, which I support, has been both lauded and denounced by the usual factions in Washington. Some of the President’s supporters, however, make the argument that a dividend tax cut will boost stock prices. While tax cuts are always good for the economy, it’s dangerous to promote the idea that government can create value in the financial markets. The collapse of stock prices in the last two years provides stark evidence that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies of the 1990s did not create lasting prosperity, and we should understand that tax policy is no different. Centralized planning via tax policy is every bit as harmful as centralized planning in monetary policy.
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
My support for any tax cut is based on a longtime belief that our federal government is far too large, that it taxes and spends far too much. I always support tax cuts because I believe government should be returned to its proper constitutional limits. I do not support the idea of using tax policy for social engineering or supposed “stimulus,” where certain activities are encouraged and others discouraged. This is not proper in a free society, and it instills the terrible notion that government should run the economy. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises understood that government could destroy wealth, but never create it. This is why government should not be in the business of manipulating stock prices- the benefits are always illusory, but the harms are very real.
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The financial markets demand real value. Merely reducing taxes on dividends or capital gains cannot make a company or stock fundamentally more valuable. Any increase in a company’s stock price not based on real gains in productivity cannot be sustained for long, especially when the increase is caused by a reaction to government policies. Simply believing a company is worth a certain amount doesn’t make it so. In the end, only results- in the form of profitability and growth- matter. When government interferes in the financial markets through its monetary or tax policies, company values become distorted and investor knowledge become even more imperfect. This encourages the kind of uneducated speculation we saw during the 1990s, and many investors today find themselves mired in debt and holding almost worthless stocks.
government
Government Policy and False Prosperity
27 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
We need to rid ourselves of the fantasy that wealth can be created by artificially raising stock prices. The only stimulus our economy needs is sensible government policies. A sound money system, low taxes, and a low regulatory burden would foster an environment where real productivity and economic growth could flourish. Politicians need to learn from the failed Fed policies of the 1990s, and stop trying to fool the markets and the American people by promising prosperity through government policy.
government
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
“The President, a Republican no less, seems to believe that government should be telling us what kind of car to drive, what kind of education our kids should receive, how to cure disease in Africa and the Caribbean, how to liberate women the world over, how to fund technological innovation, and even how to ‘transform our souls’ and lift the ‘hopes of all mankind’- all courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer who is, once again, supposed to believe that the government can make better use of his money than he can.” Lew Rockwell Jr., President of the Mises Institute
government
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Consider the call for hydrogen-powered cars. The administration wants to spend more than $1.2 billion tax dollars promoting hydrogen research. This is hailed as forward-thinking environmentally friendly policy, but really it’s just corporate welfare. No one considers that certain companies and lobbyists will benefit handsomely from this new government spending, or that American taxpayers might prefer to keep the money for themselves. If companies in the hydrogen industry get a billion dollars, what about other industries? Why should government favor one industry or technology, and who in government is qualified to choose?
government
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
A better approach would be to follow the Constitution and stop spending tax dollars on corporate subsidies. Private sector research always works better than government-sponsored research, and it always produces more honest results. If hydrogen power really works well, and companies can profitably provide clean running, affordable cars that people like, then the market for such cars will be tremendous. In other words, if hydrogen cars are so great, they will become popular without government subsidies. Why should the technology be developed at taxpayer expense, when future profits will be reaped by private companies? Let the market, rather than the lobbyists, decide whether hydrogen-powered cars are the future.
government
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
I say “supposedly” because the money never really helps, and almost always ends up in the hands of dictators, corrupt government officials, or thuggish leaders of local factions. We could send $100 or $500 billion, and Africa would remain mired in AIDS and poverty. Only freedom, property rights, capitalism, and the rule of law can help Africa. The AIDS crisis cannot be solved by government, but rather requires a combination of truly independent private sector medical research and politically incorrect prevention efforts. Americans are the most charitable people on earth, and we should stop taxing them so much and allow private charities, including charities aimed at combating AIDS, to flourish.
government
Welfare for the Left, Welfare for the Right, Welfare for the World
03 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
The State of the Union speech provided stark evidence that the era of big government is hardly over, and that welfare has not been reformed. Hydrogen boondoggles and AIDS industry welfare are just two small examples, symbols of what is wrong with a federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year. Not only does government spend far too much of your money, it spends the money badly. Once we as a society accepted the notion that Congress could fund programs not authorized in the Constitution, the sky was the limit- and we’ve reached that limit today.
government
Support the President's Tax-Free Savings Plan
10 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The President’s proposed savings accounts could put millions of Americans on the road to self-sufficiency. The only alternative to private saving is to allow ourselves to become a nation of government dependents, relying on Social Security and federal programs in our retirement years. Congress, especially the House leadership, should work hard to avoid this terrible fate by quickly passing tax-free savings accounts into law.
government
Counting on Social Security?
17 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 February 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Still, the problem seems vague and faraway for most. Today’s seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress doesn’t want to face the problem until it becomes an acute crisis. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant problem. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
government
Counting on Social Security?
17 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 February 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Furthermore, Congress needs to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid to American citizens only. In December, the national press reported on a deal looming between the administration and the Mexican government that would allow Mexican citizens who worked in the U.S.- even illegally- to qualify for Social Security benefits. A so-called “totalization” system would permit Mexican workers to add years worked in Mexico to those in the U.S. when qualifying for benefits. Unless Congress acts, the administration will begin using Social Security dollars to fund a global welfare system!
government
Buying Friends with Foreign Aid
24 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
With an American invasion of Iraq imminent, nations in the region are increasingly worried about the political, social, and economic consequences of a second Gulf war. Not surprisingly, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, and Turkey are demanding more money from the U.S. to offset the costs, economic and otherwise, of such a war. Other Middle East countries are sure to follow. Yet the more foreign aid we send to the Middle East, the more hopelessly entangled we become in the intractable conflicts that define it. Worse yet, the practice of buying friends casts very serious doubt on the lofty claims that we are promoting democracy. If our plans for Iraq will bring peace and stability to the region, why do we have to buy off the Middle East governments that stand to benefit? The truth is that those governments, even our ostensible allies, have very serious doubts about the wisdom of our proposed invasion of Iraq. Money- lots of it- makes them more amenable to our cause.
government
Buying Friends with Foreign Aid
24 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Turkey wants more than our money, however. It also wants to control the Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The Kurds in both Iraq and Turkey desire an independent Kurdish state, which the Turkish government fiercely resists. Turkish officials want an agreement that will allow thousands of their soldiers to advance into Kurdish northern Iraq on the heels of American forces. This would be a shameful insult to the Kurdish people, who at least have been consistent foes of Saddam Hussein.
government
The 2003 Spending Orgy
03 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 March 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Yet has Congress responded to this new reality with spending freezes or other austerity measures? Hardly. Its response has been exactly opposite, passing a 2003 budget that is a whopping 22% higher than just two years ago! Not only is spending way up in terms of total dollars, but the rate at which spending grows each year is accelerating rapidly. In fact, a federal budget that once took a century to double in size will now do so in only about five years. This rate of growth cannot be sustained unless Congress truly intends to bankrupt the federal government.
government
The 2003 Spending Orgy
03 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
This practice is akin to getting a pay cut at work, then immediately buying a bigger house with a higher mortgage payment. No sensible individual would spend more when his income drops, but Congress operates without any shred of common sense or restraint at budget time. When members of Congress consider the various spending bills, the money- hundreds of billions of dollars- hardly seems real. What’s another 10 million dollars, they reason, for a pet project or favor to a lobbyist? Unlike a family facing the loss of income, Congress can raise taxes, borrow from foreign governments, or spend money newly printed by the Federal Reserve. Spending cuts are simply not considered. In fact, the federal budget grows every year without exception, and the previous year’s spending is treated only as a baseline. How long could your family survive if it spent five or ten percent more money each and every year?
government
The 2003 Spending Orgy
03 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The looming hangover is reflected in the federal debt, which is officially about 5.6 trillion dollars. The real figure is much higher, because the official figure does not include outstanding future liabilities like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Baby Boomers will soon demand. The “debt limit,” created by federal law in a hopeful attempt to limit congressional spending, is routinely raised by Congress without political fallout. All Americans must become aware of how truly unrestrained federal spending has become, and realize that voters represent the last line of defense against the complete bankruptcy of the U.S. government.
government
The Myth of War Prosperity
10 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 March 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The greatest economic cost of war, however, comes from the expansion in the size and scope of government. Government always grows during wars and other crises. As economist Murray Rothbard noted, government uses crises to “Engineer the great leaps forward,” in the size of the state. When the crisis ends, government never returns to its former size. As government expands, individual liberty necessarily shrinks. True prosperity cannot exist without individual liberty and its corollaries of limited government, property rights, and free markets. Ultimately, war leaves us with less freedom at home. The sad irony is that while our soldiers have fought for the freedom of Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq, the government uses war to steadily diminish freedom here at home. While we fight a war in Iraq, we must also fight to maintain and restore individual liberty in America.
government
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
government
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
government
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.
government
Honor Veterans with a Better Budget
24 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 March 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress narrowly passed a budget last week that calls for the federal government to spend in excess of 2 trillion dollars in 2004, which is more than double what the federal government spent in 1990. Yet while Congress finds hundreds of billions to fund every conceivable unconstitutional program and special-interest pork project, it fails to provide adequately for our nation’s veterans. In fact, the budget passed by the House calls for cuts of $15.1 billion from veterans programs over the next ten years. These cuts will affect programs that provide education benefits, compensation for veterans with service-related disabilities, and pensions for disabled veterans.
government
Honor Veterans with a Better Budget
24 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in our government has been breached time and time again, and last week’s budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.
government
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The federal approach also ignores the root cause of the malpractice crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contract to viewing it as one governed by federal regulations. The third-party payer system, largely the result of federal tax laws and the HMO Act of 1973, invites insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers into the equation. This destroys the patient’s incentive to keep costs down, because he feels he is part of “the system” and someone else pays the bill. In other words, the costs of medical care have been socialized, even though HMOs are ostensibly private businesses.
government
Congress Exceeds its Credit Limit
14 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 April 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It’s not the nation’s debt, but rather the federal government’s debt. The American people didn’t spend the money, but they will have to pay it back. And if Congress has its way, our nation’s Treasury will have twice as much debt ten years from now as it does today.
government
Congress Exceeds its Credit Limit
14 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 April 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Most Americans don’t spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than six trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes- currently about $22,000. Of course the federal government never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount, for obvious reasons. Instead, it uses your income taxes to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it’s rising steadily.
government
Congress Exceeds its Credit Limit
14 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 April 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the Treasury collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially when the economy is bad. Since Congress spends more than the government makes, the federal government must either raise taxes, print more dollars to make debt payments, or borrow money. It’s happy to do all three, but they’re all bad for you- and the borrowing is bad for your grandchildren too.
government
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.
government
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
21 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 April 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
government
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
As the heaviest fighting in Iraq comes to a close, questions about what kind of government will be established dominate the news. Looting and lawlessness are the order of the day in the inevitable vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, the United Nations- at the urging of France, Germany, and Russia- wants to fill that vacuum and play the central role in postwar Iraq. If the Iraqi people ever hope to enjoy any measure of self-determination, UN occupation must be resisted.
government
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Our current approach of alternately using and ignoring the UN results in the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we give credibility to the concepts of international law and global government. We give up precious sovereignty not only to the UN, but also through trade agreements and organizations like the WTO and NAFTA. Yet while we cede more and more of our national identity to the globalists, we gain little in exchange. Other nations see us as willing to ignore the global rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain hated and mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty.
government
So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress
05 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Yet nothing could be further from the truth, as an embarrassing vote last week clearly demonstrated. The supposedly conservative Congress overwhelmingly passed a foreign aid bill that could have come straight from the desk of the most liberal Democrat. The legislation sends $15 billion of your tax dollars to Africa, ostensibly to fight AIDS by distributing condoms, providing sex education, and funding abortion providers. Needless to say the bill gives money to some very questionable organizations and programs, and will undoubtedly pad the bank accounts of some of the worst governments in the world.
government
So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress
05 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
As a physician I am of course concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS, and have great sympathy for those who suffer from AIDS both here in America and around the world. But the question is not whether each and every one of us wants to eradicate AIDS. The question is whether yet another government program, especially one that sends money overseas, is a constitutionally proper or effective way to combat the problem. We certainly should have learned by now that good intentions alone can never justify a wasteful and ineffectual government program.
government
So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress
05 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
Sadly, this $15 billion expenditure comes even as Congress is cutting funding for veterans by roughly the same amount. The Treasury is running record deficits, the Pentagon is engaged in enormously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans’ programs are badly underfunded- yet still Congress is sending billions overseas for yet another dubious and unconstitutional program. This should anger every American who still believes in the true conservative tenets of limited government, fiscal restraint, and private charity instead of social welfare programs.
government
The Phony Tax Cut Debate
12 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 12 May 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Still, the speeches on the House floor showed the current tax cut debate is strictly about politics and not serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but don’t propose truly significant tax reductions. Both sides use the outrageous expression “cost to government” when talking about the impact of tax legislation on revenues. This implies that government owns everything, and that any tax rate less than 100% costs government some of its rightful bounty.
government
The Phony Tax Cut Debate
12 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 12 May 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
One way to silence the class war argument would be to cut payroll taxes, which are paid through FICA withholding by even minimum-wage workers. This is never suggested because to do so would expose the Social Security “trust fund” lie. Since there is no trust fund and all government revenues are spent immediately, a payroll tax cut could make it impossible for the government to pay current Social Security benefits.
government
The Phony Tax Cut Debate
12 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 12 May 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
· Government spending is the problem! Taking a big chunk of the people’s earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. The real issue is total spending by government, yet this is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle in Congress.
government
The Phony Tax Cut Debate
12 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 12 May 2003 verse 10 ... Cached
· Whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue and second an economic issue. Only people pay taxes; taxes are a very definite “cost” to individuals. Taking less in taxes from those individuals should never be viewed as a cost to government.
government
The Phony Tax Cut Debate
12 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 12 May 2003 verse 11 ... Cached
· The real issue for the ages, namely “What is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic?” is ignored by both sides in the tax cut debate. And yet the bigger question is: “Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional republic?”
government
Border Tragedy Reveals Deeper Problems
19 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 19 May 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
This tragedy also reminds us of the lengths to which some will go to gain entry into the United States. Even as the government takes more and more of our income and curtails our liberties, incidents like this serve as a poignant reminder of the great freedoms and prosperity we enjoy in the United States. That dozens of people would cram themselves into a trailer like cattle, just for the opportunity to come to the United States, says a great deal about our relatively free-market system. It should also remind us of just how important it is to do everything we can to preserve our liberty and constitutional form of government.
government
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
The Federal Government Bully
government
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Do you think your federal tax dollars should be used to influence the outcome of state and local elections? Would you mind if an administration bureaucrat flew to your city- at taxpayer expense and on behalf of the federal government- to campaign against a local candidate or referendum you supported? Should certain candidates in your local election have the stamp of federal approval, much like a newspaper endorsement? Are state and local laws valid only if approved by the federal government?
government
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
These are troubling questions raised by the latest assault on states’ rights in Washington. The Ninth and Tenth amendments make it clear that under our federal system, states retain full authority to craft their own laws. The federal government has only limited, express powers, and therefore can preempt state laws only in a very narrow range of federal matters. But in imperial Washington, states have become nothing more than glorified counties.
government
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The issue is not whether one supports medical marijuana or not. The issue is whether Washington decides or local voters decide. For most issues, the Constitution leaves decision-making to the states. For most of the 20th century, however, the federal government has ignored the Constitution and run roughshod over state sovereignty. As a result, the centralizers of both parties in Washington cannot imagine a society not dominated by the federal government.
government
The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections
26 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Those who favor strict drug laws should understand that federal preemption is a double-edged sword. For example, if a socially conservative state like Utah wanted to enact harsh drug policies to reflect its community standards, federal law could actually prevent the enactment of such policies. When the American people give up state and local authority over any issue, whether its marijuana, abortion, or gun control, they give up most of their power to affect policy. It’s far easier to influence, and hold accountable, state and local officials. Once the federal government takes the opposite side of an issue, however, good luck changing things.
government
The Federal Debt Spiral
02 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 02 June 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
For perspective, this latest debt limit increase of nearly one trillion dollars is as large as the entire federal budget in 1985. The embarrassing increase was necessary because federal law limits the amount of debt the Treasury can carry, and the current $6.4 trillion limit had been reached. The federal government across the board has been spending money feverishly, at levels approximately 22% higher than just three years ago. This spending spree caused Congress to raise the debt limit from $5.9 trillion only six months ago, but the new limit was quickly reached.
government
The Federal Debt Spiral
02 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 02 June 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Debt simply has lost any remnant of stigma in Washington. The point of the debt limit law was to shine a public light on government borrowing and make lawmakers more accountable for deficit spending. The original intent behind the law- to limit borrowing- has been abandoned. Today Congress can raise the debt limit at any time with virtually no media attention. More importantly, there is no political fallout. This puts Congress in the position of a spendthrift debtor who can authorize spending limit increases on its own credit card!
government
The Federal Debt Spiral
02 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 02 June 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The spending problem is deeply rooted in Washington bureaucratic culture, and no administration is immune. The President can set the tone for fiscal restraint or fiscal indulgence, but ultimately Congress controls the purse strings though the appropriations process. One thing the President can do, however, is refuse to sign spending bills or debt limit increases. When neither Congress nor the administration is capable of fiscal self-control, the taxpayer is always the loser. How do you feel knowing the federal government just wrote itself a trillion dollar loan using your labor as collateral?
government
The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq
09 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
This is not what the attack on Iraq was supposed to be about. It wasn’t supposed to be about nation-building. It wasn’t supposed to be about an indefinite US military occupation. “Regime change” was supposed to mean that once Saddam Hussein was overthrown the Iraqi people would run their own affairs. “Liberation” was supposed to mean that the Iraqi people would be free to form their own government and rebuild their own economy.
government
The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq
09 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Yet the United States is spending tens of billions of dollars and more rebuilding Iraq. The US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, scheduled to return home after its success in Iraq, will remain “indefinitely” because securing Iraq is proving more difficult than defense planners envisioned. The US civilian authority controlling Iraq has cancelled plans to allow the Iraqis to form their own provisional government. American bureaucrats are even running the Iraqi media.
government
The Unbearable Cost of Running Iraq
09 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
I see the real possibility of our government getting into an expensive, long-term entanglement in Iraq at exactly the time we are beginning to see financial troubles on the horizon. As our nation slinks further into debt and back into deficit, we are making decisions that will literally put our children and grandchildren on the line to pay interest payments for our current policy toward Iraq.
government
Who Deserves a Tax Credit?
16 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress passed a new child tax credit bill last week amid partisan controversy, clashes between the House and Senate chambers, and the usual class-warfare rhetoric. The debate raised uncomfortable questions about which Americans “deserve” a tax break, but the larger question- whether government deserves so much of our money- went unaddressed.
government
Who Deserves a Tax Credit?
16 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The biggest issue was whether lower-income Americans, who often pay little or no income taxes, ought to get a child tax credit. This is a legitimate question when we consider some have zero tax liability because they do not work at all. If an individual truly pays no federal taxes, then any payment he receives from the government is not really a “tax credit,” but rather a welfare payment.
government
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
In a late-night vote last week, the Republican congress managed to do what Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy tried to do ten years ago: take the next big step toward socialized medicine in America. More specifically, Congress voted for a huge expansion of Medicare that enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers with billions in new spending, and forces millions of seniors to accept inferior drug coverage. Conservatives might ask themselves whether this is what they had in mind when the party of “limited government” gained control of the House, Senate, and White House.
government
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Seniors have been terribly misled about this new Medicare scheme. The essence of the new plan is government control. Government will play an even greater role in deciding what drugs seniors get, how doctors and pharmacies are paid, how private medical information is distributed, and what drug companies benefit most. The plan moves America disastrously toward a complete government takeover of medicine.
government
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The majority of seniors who like the private drug coverage they already have are the biggest losers in the new scheme. It provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plan, and some companies with large numbers of retirees have already announced their intention to do so. The Joint Economic Committee estimates that nearly 40% of private plans will stop providing prescription drug coverage because of the new Medicare plan. This number is sure to skyrocket as the cost of providing health care rises, and companies look to pass off the high costs of health care for their retired employees.
government
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Pharmaceutical companies are the biggest winners under the new plan. Demand for drugs will rise, as our already overmedicated seniors will be happy to pass the cost off onto younger taxpayers. Large drug makers will become virtual partners with government, lobbying to make sure their drugs are part of the new system. Those drugs will continue to cost much more in the U.S. than foreign countries, despite efforts in the new bill to change federal rules prohibiting reimportation of drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services secretary already stated that he will never approve reimportation. Combine this lack of price competition with lengthy patents and protectionist FDA rules, and you have a perfect prescription for record pharmaceutical profits. The pharmaceutical industry reportedly spent $135 million dollars in recent months lobbying for the new Medicare bill. This speaks volumes about how seriously they viewed the stakes involved.
government
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 10 ... Cached
Drug rationing, fewer choices, bureaucracy, subsidies, and a declining quality of health care- these are the hallmarks of government medicine.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
“Isn’t our choice really one of up or down? Down through statism, the welfare state, more and more government largesse, accompanied always by more government authority, less individual liberty and ultimately totalitarianism, always advanced as for our own good. The alternative is the dream conceived by our Founding Fathers, up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Ronald Reagan’s reminder that the Fourth of July is a celebration of independence, not dependence, still resonates today. We celebrate not only our political independence from England, but also our independence from the feudal notion of loyalty to King and Crown. We celebrate victory by the American colonies over a government that taxed them too much and sought too much control over their affairs. We also celebrate the Founding Fathers themselves, and the great principles contained in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Today some Americans, including many members of Congress, view both the Constitution and our Founders as quaint anachronisms at best. Times have changed, they argue, and we hardly should be bound by rules established by a bunch of dead white men who could not possibly understand our modern society. The Constitution is relevant only if it “evolves” to allow for new realities, and the federal government certainly should not be constrained by outdated notions about its proper role. This viewpoint steadily gained acceptance throughout the 20th century, exemplified by the blatantly unconstitutional New Deal and Great Society programs, Supreme Court activism, the virtual abolition of states rights, and uncontrolled growth of the federal government.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
In my opinion this perspective threatens the very foundation of American greatness. The principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence define the American way of life. Without those principles we become just another country, governed by whim and expediency, with no guiding vision beyond the ambitions of the latest politicians in power. The purpose of the Constitution was to impose systematic limits on government power, limits that survive the political tides.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
We owe our Founding Fathers a tremendous debt of gratitude. They created a society based on the radical idea that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual, preexisting rights granted by God rather than the state. For the first time in human history, a government was designed to serve the individual, rather than vice versa. This triumph of the individual over the claims of the state, the King, the collective, or society represents a great gift to humanity. The principle of a servant government is the ideal that made America the greatest nation on earth.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
Those who dismiss the Constitution ignore the link between the wisdom of our Founders and the freedom and prosperity we still enjoy today. America is not prosperous and relatively free merely by accident. It is prosperous and free because we still retain vestiges of our constitutional system of limited government, with its emphasis on property rights and the rule of law. Other nations are similarly filled with bright, hardworking people, and enjoy abundant natural resources. Yet why have they not prospered like America? The simple reason is they enjoy less liberty. Without liberty and property rights, the human spirit diminishes. More freedom always means more prosperity, which is why American enjoys a much higher level of material well-being than almost any other nation.
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 10 ... Cached
As we celebrate the Fourth of July, we might consider what our Founders would think of present-day America. Would they find the ideal of a servant government intact? Would they see a society that abides by the principles established in the Constitution?
government
Independence from England, Dependence on Washington?
07 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 July 2003 verse 11 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the answer is no. They would discover a society completely dominated by the federal government, totally at odds with the weak central state they envisioned. They would find the people over-taxed, over-regulated, and far too dependent on government in every sphere of human activity. They would find most Americans woefully ignorant about our own history and Constitution, despite the prevalence of college degrees. Worst of all, they would find an attitude of complacency and subservience toward government, a mindset of accepting whatever Washington hands down.
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives- a name they gave themselves- are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President’s closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative.
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
-They believe in a powerful federal government;
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 19 ... Cached
-They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government;
government
What Happened to Conservatives?
14 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 14 July 2003 verse 21 ... Cached
Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong- and I believe they are- we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement.
government
Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
21 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 July 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Throughout Greenspan’s tenure, we’ve been told that inflation is either nonexistent or very much in check. The Treasury department assures us that consumer prices, measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But inflation is much greater than the government admits. The CPI excludes housing prices, among other things. Everyone knows that housing prices have risen dramatically over the last decade in most parts of the country, with rents following closely behind. So the single biggest expense for most Americans- their mortgage or rent payment- certainly has inflated! The price of many other goods and services, including medical care and energy, also has risen substantially.
government
Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
21 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 July 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
This increase in the money supply ultimately causes price inflation, despite the government’s claims. When the money supply rises quickly relative to a fixed amount of goods and services, prices always go up. In other words, more dollars chasing the same number of consumables results in higher prices.
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
The Terrible Cost of Government
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
According to Americans for Tax Reform, Americans finally worked enough this year to pay their whopping bills to the government. July 11th earned the dubious distinction as “Cost of Government Day” for 2003, the date when the average American has worked enough in the calendar year to pay for government at the federal, state, and local levels. In other words, most Americans turn over more than half of everything they make to government- in taxes, fees, and in the form of regulations that increase the price of goods and services. For high-income individuals, the percentage can be much more than half.
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The good news for Americans is that the Cost of Government day is finally behind us for the year. The bad news is that the day keeps falling later and later, in fact 17 days later than 2000. This is due largely to the rapid growth in federal spending in recent years. This relentless growth has increased the burden of government faster than national income has risen. The result is that taxpayers are left with less money to spend, save, or invest, while the legitimate private economy staggers under the weight of a growing federal leviathan.
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Only during World War II- a momentous event requiring a huge mobilization of men, machinery, and supplies- did the federal government consume more of the nation’s productive economy than it does now. The federal government simply should not be devouring 40% of the nation’s gross domestic product!
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
For those who desperately want to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced, the first Bush term is a very serious disappointment. Spending levels are approximately 22% higher than when Clinton left office. Health care spending has increased 36% in three years, education spending has increased 26%, and “community and regional development” spending, which includes boondoggles like HUD, has increased 31%. These purely domestic spending increases cannot be excused by terrorism or the war in Iraq.
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Of course both Congress and a succession of presidents are responsible for the spending mess. The president can set a tone for fiscal restraint or indulgence, and can veto spending bills if he has the political will to do so. Congress, however, actually crafts the laughable federal “budget” and appropriates the money, so the ultimate blame for spending increases must be accorded members of the House and Senate. It’s easy to talk about smaller government, but few actually vote against the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund so many wasteful and unconstitutional departments, agencies, and programs. There are simply too many special interests counting on the money contained in the appropriations bills, and those same interests will take their campaign contributions elsewhere if a congressman fails to play the game.
government
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The American people are also responsible for the growth in government, however. We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today’s political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people’s money. Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law. As the brilliant writer and professor Thomas Sowell said, “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.”
government
Drug Reimportation Increases Medical Freedom
04 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 04 August 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The pharmaceutical industry obviously likes this, and it worked overtime lobbying against the reimportation measure- paying off some strange bedfellows in the process. Several supposedly free-market groups came out against reimportation, making tortured attempts to argue that the free-market principles they normally promote somehow just don’t apply to imported prescription drugs. Some even made the outrageous argument that reimportation will threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s profits, as though it is the job of government to ensure the profitability of any industry!
government
Drug Reimportation Increases Medical Freedom
04 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 04 August 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
It does not matter if the Canadians or Germans employ price controls. Their drug prices may be artificially low, while ours may be artificially high. This simply shows that both the U.S. and other countries interfere in the market. It is not a justification for further intervention in the market by prohibiting reimportation. American consumers should not be punished simply because other governments have foolish economic policies.
government
Drug Reimportation Increases Medical Freedom
04 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 04 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Pharmaceutical companies certainly own the drugs they produce, and they have every right to sell them at any price they choose. They also have the right not to sell their products to foreign pharmacies, or to condition sales on an agreement that such pharmacies will not reimport into the U.S. They do not have a right, however, to use government to prevent Americans from buying drugs from any willing seller they choose, regardless of where that seller may be located. To quote Sheldon Richman, a scholar at the Future of Freedom Foundation, “The U.S. government has no business telling the American people what they may and may not buy from people living outside the country. That’s called freedom, something earlier Americans actually understood and valued.”
government
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
government
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
government
Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
18 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Last week’s blackout that paralyzed much of the northeast has politicians scrambling to assign blame and pledge action to fix the problem. The universal consensus is that government, specifically Congress, must immediately “do something.” As with most crises, the problem is instantly assumed to stem from a lack of government regulation.
government
Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
18 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Yet few industries are more regulated than the electricity industry. Power companies have become quasi-public entities; many are municipally owned. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a slew of state and local agencies regulate every action they take. When a problem happens, however, nobody cries out for greater freedom in the electricity industry or condemns government for too much regulation.
government
Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
18 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
It’s true that the nation’s power grids are inadequate for today’s needs, and that a relatively small overload in a vulnerable spot can create a huge problem. This is hardly an indictment of the free market, however, but rather an indictment of the stifling maze of government regulations that burden electricity producers. Energy bureaucrats, despite their attempts at centralized planning through production and price controls, can never hope to determine how much electricity should be produced, where it should be channeled, and at what prices it should be sold. The very complexity of the power grid, which resembles a spider web dotted by population centers, cries out for the economic cooperation that only the invisible hand of an unregulated market system can provide.
government
Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
18 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
As economist Thomas DiLorenzo points out, the fundamental problem is government interference with supply in the electricity market. The nation’s population has risen dramatically in the last 30 years, causing a huge increase in demand for electricity. But supply has increased little if at all, thanks to environmentalists and land-use bureaucrats at both the state and federal levels. The Neo-Luddites, as DiLorenzo terms them, are adamantly against building new nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, and especially coal or natural gas-fired electric power plants. When demand grows without a corresponding increase in capacity, the entire electric grid becomes overloaded. Last week demonstrates that it doesn’t take much to tip the balance and crash the system over a large area.
government
Look Outside Politics for Blackout Solution
18 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Electricity, from coal burning sources or not, is likely to remain our primary form of power for decades. We simply need to accept this and build more electric power plants. In a free market, profit-seeking companies would be happy to build new plants and sell power to an ever-growing population. Unless and until government stops restricting supply and controlling prices, however, we can only expect the electric power system to remain vulnerable. It is precisely because electricity is so vitally important in our modern world that it should be delivered by the efficient free market, rather than the dismal bureaucratic sector. In this day and age, it is preposterous that we have problems delivering simple electric power where and when it is needed. The recent blackout cannot be blamed on technology or a lack of capital, and certainly not on a supposed market failure. The real problem- too much government regulation- is likely to be ignored as Congress rushes to engineer a wholesale federal takeover of the electricity industry.
government
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
Trust Us, We're the Government
government
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a bizarre promotional tour to counter growing public opposition to the Patriot Act. The administration clearly is worried by recent votes in Congress to limit the scope of the Act, votes that reflect the willingness of even GOP loyalists to buck the president on the issue. So Mr. Ashcroft is visiting several cities to give a stump speech that essentially says this: Trust us- we’re the government, and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.
government
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
But the attorney general misses the point. Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.
government
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
It is clear, however, that the Patriot Act expands the government’s ability to monitor us. The Act eases federal rules for search warrants in some cases; allows expanded wiretaps and internet monitoring; allows secret “sneak and peek” searches; and even permits federal agents to examine library and bookstore records. On these grounds alone it should be soundly rejected.
government
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The Clinton administration would like the federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad- all in the name of national security.
government
Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?
01 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
We should not expect any international coalition to help us pay the bills for occupying Iraq, however. American taxpayers alone will bear the tremendous financial burden of nation building in Iraq. We are already spending about 5 billion dollars in Iraq every month, a number likely to increase as the ongoing instability makes it clear that more troops and aid are needed. We will certainly spend far more than the 65 billion dollars originally called for by the administration to prosecute the war. The possibility of spending hundreds of billions in Iraq over several years is very real. This is money we simply don’t have, as evidenced by the government’s deficit spending- borrowing- to finance the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to date.
government
Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?
01 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq. It’s not enough for our political and military leaders to make vague references to some future time when democratic rule and a civil society somehow will emerge in Iraq. It’s patently unrealistic to expect that nation’s various warring factions to suddenly embrace representative democracy and accept the outcome of a western-style vote. Even if open elections could be held, the majority might well choose an anti-American fundamentalist regime. This puts Washington in a Catch 22: The U.S. clearly will influence the creation of a new Iraqi government to ensure it is friendly to America, yet the perception that we installed the government will create further hostility toward America. There obviously are no easy solutions to the dilemmas we face in Iraq, and the complexity of the political and social realities begs the question: How do we ever hope to get out? If real stability and democratic rule simply cannot be attained in Iraq, are we prepared to occupy it for decades to come?
government
The Tyranny of Paper Money
08 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Mr. Greenspan once understood that a fiat money system represents nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. When the government can print money at will, it’s morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Fiat money polices especially hurt savers and those on fixed incomes, who find the value of their dollars steadily eroded by the Fed’s printing presses.
government
The Tyranny of Paper Money
08 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
We need to understand why a fiat system is so popular with economists, the business community, bankers, and government officials. One explanation is that a fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims, who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight.
government
War and Red Ink
15 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
The president plans to request another $87 billion from Congress to fund operations in Iraq, a number that not surprisingly is much higher than originally called for by the administration. It’s not surprising because everything government does costs more than originally expected, but it’s important to note that some in the administration who warned about the true financial costs of an Iraq war were forced to leave.
government
War and Red Ink
15 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
The question we might ask ourselves is this: What if our efforts to rebuild Iraq and install a democratic government do not work? Are we prepared to spend less on domestic programs like Social Security, welfare, and education? Are we prepared to raise taxes? Can we continue to borrow money abroad? Of course Americans are always prepared to make hard choices and sacrifice for causes in which they truly believe, but the stark economic realities of occupying Iraq have not been fairly presented.
government
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
The gun control movement in America has lost momentum in recent years, as evidenced by the Democratic party’s conspicuous silence on the issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks only made matters worse for gun control advocates, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
government
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
government
Reject UN Gun Control
22 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
government
Your Money in Iraq
29 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The stark reality is that the federal government will fund the open-ended occupation of Iraq either by raising taxes, borrowing overseas, or printing more money. All three options are bad for average Americans.
government
Your Money in Iraq
29 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 17 ... Cached
We have embarked on probably the most extensive nation-building experiment in history. Our provisional authority seeks nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will all pay to provide job-training for Iraqis, while more and more Americans find themselves out of work. We will pay to secure the Iraqi borders, while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable. We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building.
government
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
As Congress finalizes plans to expand Medicare, more and more seniors are beginning to understand that “free” prescription drugs from the government will carry a very high price tag. The tragedy is that our society is allowing the pharmaceutical industry, phony senior lobbies, and vote-hungry politicians to force millions of older Americans into a government-run Medicare ghetto.
government
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
All of us, including seniors, will pay for the drug benefit in the form of higher taxes. Congress claims the program will cost $400 billion over the next 10 years, but government cost projections cannot be trusted. Medicare today costs seven times more than originally estimated. Private economists estimate the true cost will be closer to $3 or $4 trillion over ten years, but even the government’s figure of $400 billion represents the largest entitlement increase since the failed Great Society programs of the 1960s. This new spending comes as the Treasury faces record single-year deficits, which soon will approach $1 trillion annually.
government
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Furthermore, the Medicare drug benefit gives private companies a perverse incentive to dump their existing prescription coverage and force retirees into the government system. Many large companies already have badly underfunded pension plans. As more and more Baby Boomers retire, these companies will face serious financial crises. They will naturally seek to cut costs by eliminating drug coverage; some companies already have announced their intention to do so when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least one-third of all retirees will lose their private drug coverage and becomes wards of Medicare.
government
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Prescription drugs are tremendously expensive, but the solution is not a wasteful new one-size-fits-all government drug entitlement. To lower drug prices, we must eliminate government interference that prevents healthy free-market price competition.
government
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
First and foremost, we must eliminate the middleman in health care. The HMO Act of 1973, coupled with tax rules that do not allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for health care, combine to force millions of Americans to deal with HMO and Medicare bureaucrats. Whenever a third-party stands between a doctor and his patient, health care becomes inefficient and expensive. Individuals should be able to decide with their doctors what drugs are appropriate, and then reduce their taxable income dollar-for-dollar for all drug expenditures. By forcing employers to offer HMOs and prohibiting individuals from paying for drugs with pre-tax dollars, government enables drug companies to set high prices for deep-pocket middlemen.
government
Lessons from the California Recall
13 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The problem in California is easy to identify: the state government consistently spends more than collects in taxes. Drunk on record revenues from the stock boom of the late 1990s, legislators in California went on a spending spree that bloated social services and added thousands of government employees to state payrolls. Politically, social service programs and government jobs are easy to create- but virtually impossible to eliminate. So when the bubble burst and tax revenues dropped dramatically, the state predictably kept spending at the same rate. The result is record budget deficits and the potential for a default on payments to state employees, various creditors, and bondholders.
government
Lessons from the California Recall
13 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
If the scenario on the west coast seems familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before in Washington. Congress spends far too much regardless of revenues. The fundamental difference is that the State of California, unlike the federal government, cannot simply print money to pay its obligations. It has only two choices when spending outpaces revenues: borrow money or raise taxes. With its bond and credit ratings floundering, borrowing is a difficult and expensive venture. Taxpayers in the state already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, so tax hikes are politically unpopular. Faced with this dilemma, California lawmakers did nothing, hoping to keep the treasury afloat until tax revenues rebounded. But the economic turnaround never happened, so California faces a crisis here and now. Somebody had to pay, and Gray Davis was the most visible symbol of an irresponsible government.
government
Lessons from the California Recall
13 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Federal politicians, however, can use government printing presses to sweep economic problems under the rug and hide the effects of deficit spending- at least for a time. Our fiat monetary system permits politicians to spend money now to win votes and fund popular programs, while delaying the harms until later. When the federal government monetizes debt by magically paying its bills with newly printed money, the economic effects are diffused throughout the economy. Over time, however, we all pay for the increased number of dollars in circulation. Prices go up, personal savings are eroded, and the dollar becomes weaker against other currencies.
government
Lessons from the California Recall
13 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The crisis in Sacramento should serve as a cautionary tale for all Americans. Legislators in statehouses across the country and in Washington lack the political will to cut spending. They consistently spend more each year, without regard to revenues. If the process goes on too long, government becomes insolvent, unable to tax or borrow enough to satisfy its voracious appetite. It could happen in your state, and it is happening in Washington. It’s worse in DC, however, because Federal Reserve printing presses help our national politicians temporarily evade reality. If Congress continues to spend and print dollars at the pace of recent years, however, the devaluation of our currency will make all of us poorer for decades to come.
government
$20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified
20 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
First and foremost, we simply do not have the $87 billion to spend. The federal government literally will have to borrow or print the money needed for our ongoing occupation of Iraq. This new spending will only add to the record budget deficit of $525 billion projected for 2004. At this rate, the Treasury will face single-year deficits of one trillion dollars by the end of the decade.
government
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Congress passes 13 huge appropriations bills each year, along with a 14th known generously as the “supplemental” bill. These bills fund a vast array of federal departments, agencies, and programs, including more than a trillion dollars worth of entitlements. Each bill is stuffed with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens or hundreds of amendments to be added to each bill, always with more money for somebody.
government
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
This process gives members of the House Appropriations committee unwarranted power, because so many special interests depend on receiving a piece of the government pie. Members of Congress play along if they hope to bring home as much pork as possible to their districts, and this includes making deals with a variety of devils. Any member who hopes to solidify his reelection chances by delivering pork will find himself agreeing to vote for all kinds of unsavory bills in exchange.
government
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 10 ... Cached
But who decided the federal government absolutely must spend more and more each year? Why can’t spending be reduced, even if only by a few percent? Imagine how much capital would be unleashed into the productive private economy if government spent just one percent less each year over the next ten years. Does anyone seriously believe there is not ten percent worth of fat that could be trimmed from the federal budget? Today’s government astonishingly spends more than twice what it spent just in 1990. As commentator Lew Rockwell points out, did we really think government was painfully small then?
government
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course politicians in Washington like to talk about the need for fiscal restraint, but they never vote for it. Talk is one thing; the true test of any politician is how he votes. The only real measure of any member of Congress who claims to want smaller government is whether he votes NO on every appropriations bill. If he votes yes, he’s voting for bigger government. It’s that simple. A true fiscal conservative votes for less spending, not more.
government
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 12 ... Cached
Most Americans think the federal government is too large, spends too much money, and spends it badly. Even the most ardent liberals admit there is a tremendous amount of waste in government. But Congress clearly does not agree, because it relentlessly spends more and more each year. American taxpayers, therefore, have two basic options: start voting the big spenders out of office, or slowly submit to democratic socialism courtesy of a government that soon will devour 50% of the nation’s productive output.
government
Economic Woes Begin at Home
03 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Instead of promoting global economic government, Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers’ competitiveness. Recently, a prominent financial journalist visited with businessmen who are launching new enterprises in China. When he asked them why they chose to invest in China, they answered: “It is so much easier to start a business in China than in the United States, especially in places like Massachusetts and California.”
government
Mistreating Soldiers and Veterans
10 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
Members of our armed forces deserve more than platitudes when they return from foreign wars with illnesses or disabilities. Unfortunately, the trust our soldiers place in the federal government to provide for their health care has been breached time and time again. Last week’s partial grant of concurrent receipt benefits will prove woefully inadequate for most of our disabled veterans, veterans who could be well-served with just a fraction of the billions Congress gave away in Iraq.
government
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.
government
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.
government
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Nothing from the government is free, of course, and prescription drugs will be no exception. The perception that seniors will be able to flash a Medicare card at the pharmacy and walk out without paying anything is completely false. In fact, many seniors will end up paying more out-of-pocket under the Medicare scheme than they do now with their private plans. The Medicare drug benefit requires monthly premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, just as private plans do. It also has gaps in coverage that no sensible person would accept if offered by a private insurer. Like all government programs, the Medicare drug entitlement will be shabby, degrading, and inferior to the private sector.
government
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.
government
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The financial impact of this legislation on taxpayers cannot be overstated. Government projections that the drug program will cost $400 billion over the next decade cannot be trusted, as existing Medicare programs cost 4 times more than estimated when they were created. The likely cost is at least $1 trillion over 10 years, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older. The Medicare “trust fund” is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private-sector output! Clearly this new Medicare spending will bury our great-grandchildren unless we rethink the wisdom of ever-increasing entitlement programs.
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater- era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington.
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25% since President Bush took office. The federal government now spends roughly $21,000 per household every year, up from $16,000 just 4 years ago. Columnist Cal Thomas, in a recent article entitled “The Embarrassing GOP,” raises an excellent question: “How much of that $21,000 could you spend that would produce better results for yourself and your family?”
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Consider that Mr. Bush has not vetoed a single bill, nor does he even bother to employ conservative rhetoric. Chris Edwards of the CATO Institute says this about the President: “I’ve never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs.” Furthermore, the outlook for spending restraint during a second Bush term is nil: “When you have a president who has a bunch of his own spending initiatives like education and the Medicare drug bill, it makes it difficult for him to go out and say that Congress is being wasteful,” Mr. Edwards states.
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Columnists have coined the phrase “Big-Government Republicans” to describe the current crop of free spenders now controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. Many of the president’s closest advisors are Big-Government Republicans, former leftists who have no qualms about spending huge amounts of money both at home and abroad to achieve supposedly conservative ends.
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The irony is that conservatives suffered through decades of Democratic control of Congress, always believing that liberals were to blame for the relentless growth of the federal government. When Republicans finally took control of Congress in 1994, many saw an opportunity for a real conservative revolution. But first, conservatives were told, the Democratic administration had to be removed. In the meantime, spending continued unabated throughout the 1990s. When Republicans won the White House in 2000, another opportunity seemed at hand. The Senate, however, was still in Democratic hands-- the last possible GOP scapegoat. Finally, in 2002 the GOP took control of the Senate and increased its majority in the U.S. House. Surely this was the moment conservatives had been waiting for! Yet the past year has seen more spending than ever, including the disastrous Medicare bill that will cost trillions over coming decades. The latest line is that the GOP needs a filibuster-proof Senate of 60 Republicans, and then, finally, the party can begin to implement a conservative agenda.
government
GOP Abandons Conservatives
01 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
At what point will conservatives stop accepting these excuses? When does the conservative base of the GOP, a base that remains firmly committed to the principle of limited government, finally demand new leadership and a return to conservative values? Will conservatives abandon the party when they realize the GOP, at least under its current leadership, is simply not interested in reducing the size and scope of the federal government? With Republicans controlling the administration and the legislature, and nominally controlling the Supreme Court, the party has run out of other people to blame. One thing is certain: Republicans who support bigger entitlement programs and bigger federal budgets have lost all credibility as advocates for limited government.
government
The Disappearing Dollar
08 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The problem is that faith can be shaken, and the precipitous drop in the dollar shows how investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When government policies in a fiat system are the sole measure of a currency’s worth, the currency markets act as a reliable barometer of how those policies are viewed around the world. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government. The Medicare prescription drug bill passed two weeks ago provides an example of this phenomenon- the day after the bill passed, the dollar dropped once again. Investors understand that the new entitlement will cost trillions over coming decades, trillions that will come from Treasury printing presses and further devalue existing dollars.
government
Elusive Peace in the Middle East
15 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Another Christmas season is upon us, but sadly prospects for peace in the holy land during the New Year are bleak. People on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute have become exceedingly frustrated with the endless impasse and government peace agreements that produce no results.
government
Elusive Peace in the Middle East
15 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
One thing is certain: U.S. involvement in the deadly conflict has led nowhere. The federal government has spent tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars in the region, and a succession of presidents have held peace summits with Middle Eastern leaders, all to no avail. The endless supply of American money, however well-intentioned, gives the leaders of both sides a perverse incentive to remain engaged in the process indefinitely.
government
Elusive Peace in the Middle East
15 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
The “Geneva Accord,” a document released earlier this month, represents an attempt to craft an alternative peace plan for the intractable dispute. The Accord is unique in that it was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but wholly without the involvement of governments or politicians. Governments, politicians, and special interests often promote conflict at the expense of ordinary people, so the promise of the Geneva Accord is that it more closely represents the interests of those most affected by the ongoing violence.
government
Elusive Peace in the Middle East
15 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Predictably, the Geneva Accord has been greeted with hostility by those who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. Palestinian leader Arafat has shown little enthusiasm for the plan; extremist Arab terrorist organizations of course oppose it altogether. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has rejected it out of hand. But the victims in Israel and Palestine, the ordinary people who must live with the violence and danger, are starting to demand peace. Popular support for the Geneva Accord is growing among both the Israeli and Palestinian populations. People are beginning to understand that peace is too important to be left up to government officials, most of whom are safely insulated from the daily violence.
government
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”
government
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.
government
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
22 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.
government
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
government
Christmas in Secular America
29 December 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
government
Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway
05 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Last year around this time I wrote about a serious threat to Social Security that was moving ever-closer--a threat so great that it could truly break the bank of our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. The threat is the ongoing "totalization" negotiations between the US and Mexican governments. An agreement on "totalization" would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for American Social Security. Press reports just last month reminded us that these talks are continuing and will likely be completed this year.
government
Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway
05 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments to help American citizens who were sent abroad by their companies. From there we have come, nearly 30 years later, to the point where an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens would be eligible for US Social Security in the next five years.
government
Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway
05 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Those in favor of sending US Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that the crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of US assistance to that country's aged. While the poverty in Mexico is truly deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that the US Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program. I would applaud any private citizen who wishes to help his fellow man living in poverty, whether in the US or Mexico or wherever he wishes. But for the US government to force this kind of "charity" is both immoral and illegal.
government
Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway
05 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
When Congress returns late this month, it should take the opportunity to re-affirm that Social Security is an American program designed to benefit American retired workers. That is why I introduced HR 489, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, in the current Congress. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization.
government
Amnesty and Culture
12 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and the Bush administration’s new proposal to grant legal status to millions of illegal aliens surely meets that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.
government
Amnesty and Culture
12 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape.
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
Government and Marriage
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
"If government subsidized beaches, we would have a shortage of sand.”
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The irony is that an initiative aimed at promoting moral values will be funded immorally, by taxing people who may have no interest in such government folly.
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The failed history of welfarism and socialism in America shows that government programs ultimately erode our culture by damaging personal virtue. When government ostensibly attempts to promote culture, it always further erodes liberty. The administration’s proposal only expands the reach of the federal welfare state, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Healthy marriages are not the result of government programs. Healthy marriages are the result of individual conviction and personal responsibility, neither of which can be mandated by government.
government
Government and Marriage
19 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Government is not morality, government is force- and forcing taxpayers to fund another silly program will not strengthen the institution of marriage. If Mr. Bush really wants to promote marriage, he should work to dismantle the soul-destroying welfare system that rewards out-of-wedlock births. He should work to end the judicial assault on religious liberty. He should urge Congress to cut spending and taxes, so that more money can flow into churches and private charities. The president certainly is correct that marriage is important, and the need for stable, two-parent families is apparent. We should all be quite skeptical, however, of claims that government programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.
government
Congress Cannot Be Appointed
26 January 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
At its heart, the proposed constitutional amendment is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives. The term “appointed representative” clearly is an oxymoron. The House, designed as the most directly representative branch of government, must be elected to have any legitimacy. Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.
government
Spending and Lying
02 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
The federal spending frenzy of the last few years is well documented, but these latest figures have congressional Republicans and the White House scrambling to figuring out how to explain the budget mess to voters in November. Having abandoned even the limited government rhetoric of the Reagan and Gingrich years, mainstream Republicans now must attempt to out-pander the Democrats. The Medicare bill is clear evidence of this.
government
Spending and Lying
02 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Some conservatives have criticized Mr. Bush’s spending requests, but their votes don’t always match their words. True fiscal conservatives in Congress have only one choice: Vote NO on all spending bills, especially the 13 annual appropriations bills. This is the only honest measure of whether any member of Congress truly wants smaller government. It’s galling to hear members who voted for the Medicare bill and huge increases in 2004 agency budgets complain about excessive spending.
government
Spending and Lying
02 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Faced with a severe budget crisis, the federal government should do what any family or business would do in similar circumstances: drastically reduce spending and sell off assets. It is preposterous that the federal budget has more than doubled just since 1990, and surely the republic would survive a return to 1995 or 2000 spending levels. Furthermore, the government owns trillions of dollars worth of land and other assets, assets that should be sold to pay off the mounting national debt. Why should additional debt and new taxes be forced upon the American people to pay for government sins, especially when the spendthrift politicians have substantial assets at their disposal?
government
Spending and Lying
02 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Government is incapable of austerity measures for a very simple reason: the money it spends belongs to others. Unless and until federal politicians are voted out of office for their sins, we can only expect the spending, borrowing, taxing, and printing of fiat money to continue.
government
Congress Goes AWOL
09 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
We should not make Mr. Tenet the scapegoat. The issue is not whether our intelligence was perfect, but rather the process by which we allow our government to commit troops to war. That process bypassed Congress almost entirely.
government
Greenspan's Black Magic
23 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Debt is the fundamental problem the central planners at the Fed will not address. The total U.S. federal debt is more than $7 trillion, and government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has never been higher except during World War II. Mr. Greenspan’s attempts to stimulate economic growth by printing money become more and more tenuous: today the Fed must create nearly $7 of new debt in the form of new fiat currency to generate only $1 of new GDP. Twenty years ago the figure was less than $1.50. Clearly this is a race that has run its course.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
government
Gay Marriage Quicksand
01 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.
government
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
In doing so, Congress ignored a fundamental truth: government control over radio and television broadcasts is incompatible with a free society. FCC control of broadcast content, whether through licensing, regulations, or fines, is naked censorship that is utterly at odds with the plain words of the First Amendment. It could not be any clearer: “Congress shall make no law.”
government
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The censors from both political parties argue that because the broadcast spectrum is publicly owned, the public has a right to control the content. But “public” ownership really means government ownership. And government ownership means the current gang of bureaucrats in power gets to decide what is heard and seen. Airwaves are far too precious to be owned or controlled by government- like other scarce and valuable natural resources, airwaves should be controlled by market forces. One mistake- nationalizing the airwaves- does not justify another. We should not violate the First Amendment today because of the sins of the past.
government
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
There’s nothing new about this latest congressional attack on expression. The political right wing has always embraced censorship, believing that government can foster and protect moral values through strict regulation of speech. But this curious attitude conflicts with the central tenet of conservatism, namely a healthy mistrust of government. Why do conservatives feel compelled to have a federal nanny state protect their children from indecency? Why do conservatives, who once questioned and resisted the growing involvement of government in our lives, now trust FCC bureaucrats to determine moral standards? Conservatives should know that a decent society is rooted in strong families, churches, and civic institutions, not government control of broadcasting.
government
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Conservatives must understand that the powers they grant the FCC today may one day be used against them. It is not hard to imagine a future where criticism of abortion is deemed hate speech against women, or criticism of affirmative action considered an unlawful attack on minorities. It is not hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton ordering the FCC to shut down Rush Limbaugh for using the term “feminazi.” Already a petition has been filed with the Justice department to investigate The Passion of the Christ for possible hate crimes against those who dislike the film’s theology! Big-government conservatives will learn that heavy-handed federal control of speech is far more likely to result in a rigidly secular, politically-correct society than a moral society imbued with Christian virtue.
government
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Ultimately, broadcasters air indecent material only if the market demands it. Congress cannot raise the moral bearing of the American people by edict, but it can destroy liberty in the process. When it comes to decency, the American people should stop looking to government and start looking at themselves.
government
Iraq One Year Later
22 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The Iraq war began about one year ago with the swift and decisive overthrow of Baghdad and the Hussein regime. We are only beginning to understand, however, the true scope of our ongoing occupation of a nation rife with civil, ethnic, and tribal conflict. July stands as the deadline for our provisional government to relinquish control to an emerging Iraqi government, but we are kidding ourselves about just how long American forces will need to remain involved.
government
Iraq One Year Later
22 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.
government
March (Budget) Madness
29 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Despite all the rhetoric flying around Washington last week during the annual budget debate, one fact about the new budget is clear: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for the enormous budget resolution, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony talk about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.
government
March (Budget) Madness
29 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and military expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When congressional Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion, and why not? It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.
government
March (Budget) Madness
29 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The term “baseline budget” is used every year in Washington. It means the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that increases federal spending by 3%, while Democrats propose 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.
government
March (Budget) Madness
29 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would be unnecessary if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.
government
LOST at Sea
05 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
government
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The real tragedy is that the federal government once again has interfered with the doctor-patient relationship. All decisions concerning appropriate medical treatment should be made between doctors and their patients, without government involvement. But, when threatened with criminal prosecution or loss of their medical licenses, many doctors simply have stopped prescribing powerful pain drugs--no matter how much their patients may need them. Some have even posted signs in their waiting rooms advising patients not to ask for OxyContin and similar drugs. It is shameful that government has created an atmosphere where doctors are afraid of exercising their medical judgment.
government
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices altogether, leaving their patients with nowhere to turn for pain relief. Is the government concerned about the terrible chilling effect caused by its crackdown on doctors? Hardly. In fact, the current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that, “Our office will try our best to root out certain doctors like the Taliban.”
government
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek relief from other, less reliable, sources--such as street drug dealers. Of course pain drugs bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than those obtained from a physician.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer.
government
Free Market Medicine
03 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 03 May 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.
government
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Dr. Cecil Knox of Virginia is one recent victim of federal authorities, who cannot abide physicians using their own judgment when prescribing pain medication. Dr. Knox faces federal criminal charges for prescribing legal pain drugs, and tragically has been forced to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending himself. Virginia state authorities have neither charged him with a crime nor revoked his medical license, yet the federal government- which constitutionally has no authority to usurp state drug laws- perversely seeks to imprison Dr. Knox for life!
government
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Doctors are not slaves, and they will not continue practicing medicine forever if the federal government insists on monitoring, harassing, fining, and even jailing them. Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment, nor should they be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.
government
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
government
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
In developing countries that pursue sound economic policies, foreign aid money is not needed- the international financial markets will provide the investment capital necessary for economic growth. This capital will be invested according to sound investment strategies - designed to make a profit - rather than allocated according to the whims of government bureaucrats.
government
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Foreign aid encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it mandates economically devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations. If the private sector wants to see any of the money, it must be in partnership with government. Who knows how much of this money is wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power? Foreign aid invites political corruption by creating a slush fund under the control of foreign governments.
government
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, by revitalizing the economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. The greatest gift we can send overseas is a demonstration of the freedom and prosperity possible only with limited government and the rule of law.
government
The Great Foreign Aid Swindle
24 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 24 May 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Americans are the most charitable people on earth. Those who wish to help fight AIDS, famine, and poverty overseas can choose from hundreds of private charities. Americans don’t need a politician or rock star to tell them what causes are important. Most of all, they don’t need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
In recent days administration officials have warned the nation about possible terrorist attacks, subjecting us once again to color-coded threat charts and puzzling admonitions to go about our lives as usual. The message is clear: grave danger surrounds us, but ordinary citizens should do nothing and trust the government take care of it.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
But the obvious lesson of September 11th is that government cannot protect us. Even with trillions of tax dollars spent on “defense,” hijacked planes flew unchallenged over our skies and attacked national symbols of business and government. Yet now we’re told to put even more faith into the same bureaucracies that failed us so miserably in the past? Self-reliance and self-defense are American virtues; trembling reliance on the illusion of government-provided security is not.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell Americans that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but it’s your freedom and your tax dollars at stake- not theirs. The history of the 20th century demonstrates that the Constitution is violated most egregiously during times of crisis. Many of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression, when the public was anxious and willing to view government as a savior and protector. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- meaning break the law- in the name of law enforcement.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; future administrations may consider you a terrorist if you belong to a pro-gun group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11th attacks because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
government
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.
government
Superpower or Superdebtor?
07 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Since the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, the US government has spent more than 40 million taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi in turn fed the US government lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda in the hope that the US would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and put him in power. To hedge his bets, it appears he made a few deals with the Iranians, delivering US intelligence to that country. How’s that for gratitude? Now we see that the US has raided the house of Ahmed Chalabi and seized his papers and computers to see how much damage he may have caused the US with his Iranian dealings.
government
Superpower or Superdebtor?
07 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations. But economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation. Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed. At that point it will become painfully obvious to even the most strident supporter of our interventionist foreign policy that the super-power has become a super-debtor, its power and influence greatly diminished, and its people much poorer and more vulnerable.
government
Superpower or Superdebtor?
07 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It is not too late to change course. The United States can again be viewed as the shining city on the hill and an example to other nations by re-embracing the kind of foreign and economic policies that made us wealthy and admired across the globe in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. Regaining our economic security will go much further toward guaranteeing our national security in the future.
government
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
14 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.
government
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers
14 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president- one man- too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.
government
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.
government
Zero Down for the American Dream
21 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The American dream cannot be lived courtesy of taxpayer handouts. The experience of working hard, saving for a downpayment, and buying a home is the essence of the true American dream. Eventually the beneficiaries of government programs stop thinking of themselves as independent citizens, and start viewing themselves as wards of the state. It is impossible to maintain a free society when more and more people look to the state to provide what Americans used to provide for themselves.
government
Why Can't Congress Stop Spending?
28 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress spent one evening last week debating a token measure to reduce government spending by implementing very slight caps on some future entitlements. Not surprisingly, even this exceedingly modest bill failed overwhelmingly. The process behind the vote, however, reveals just how deeply ingrained the spending problem really is.
government
Why Can't Congress Stop Spending?
28 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Predictably, almost all members of the House Appropriations committee- the committee initially responsible for every nickel of federal spending- voted against the bill. This simply highlights the institutional problem that plagues Congress and government in general: no politician ever voluntarily relinquishes power. In Congress, control of the nation’s purse strings represents the ultimate power. Appropriators can reward some lawmakers and punish others with the stroke of a pen, by adding or eliminating federal projects in any congressional district. No amount of talk about spending can change the reality that government power naturally grows.
government
Why Can't Congress Stop Spending?
28 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Everybody complains about pork, but members of Congress keep spending because voters do not throw them out of office for doing so. The rotten system in Congress will change only when the American people change their beliefs about the proper role of government in our society. Too many members of Congress believe they can solve all economic problems, cure all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity simply by creating new federal programs. We must reject unlimited government and reassert the constitutional rule of law if we hope to halt the spending orgy.
government
Why Can't Congress Stop Spending?
28 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 28 June 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
“No amount of legislation will instill in a majority of the members of the House the ingredient, the element that has been missing. That is fiscal responsibility. Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,000 and remain solvent. Every member knows this government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure. Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes available the money. I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of members of Congress.”
government
Independence from Washington
05 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Freedom, self-determination, and the end of allegiance to an unaccountable government: 228 years ago this week a handful of radical American colonists set forth their demands in the Declaration of Independence. They sought independence not only from English rule, but also from the feudal notion of obedience to King and Crown. Their views were not shared even by a majority of their fellow colonists, nor could they hope to match England’s naval and military power- but their courage was undeniable.
government
Independence from Washington
05 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
But rather than focus on where we have failed, we should stay focused on the ideal of freedom. The freedom we enjoy today is the direct result of the commitment of men and women who refused to compromise their ideals. Certainly they failed at times, but they understood that the goal was liberty. Today our government and society seem to have lost sight of this goal.
government
Independence from Washington
05 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
For more than six months of every year the average American toils not for his family, for his needs, or for his future. No, for the first six months of the year the average American works to pay the cost of federal, state, and local taxes and regulations. From New Year’s Day until about the 4th of July, you worked to pay for government. This is unconscionable.
government
Independence from Washington
05 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Our Founding Fathers no doubt would be embarrassed at our squandering of their vision. After all, they revolted at a comparable tax rate in the single digits or less. And yet we willingly suffer an effective tax rate of 50%, and much more in many cases. They tyranny of the Crown has been replaced by the tyranny of the federal government in Washington.
government
Independence from Washington
05 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 05 July 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
We are not slaves, but many feel they are indentured servants to government. And by and large it has happened with our willing consent. We have knowingly compromised our sacred liberty for temporary promises of security or false prosperity.
government
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.
government
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.
government
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.
government
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.
government
None of Your Business!
12 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 12 July 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.
government
Saving the World with Your Money
19 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 July 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Congress hardly needs to concoct another way to spend money. Government debt already exceeds seven trillion dollars, and runaway spending will force yet another increase in the federal debt ceiling law before the end of the year. At its current pace, Congress soon will create single-year deficits of one trillion dollars. Combine this indebtedness with future liabilities- in the form of exploding Social Security and Medicare obligations- and it’s clear that Congress can find better things to do with $2.5 billion than send it overseas.
government
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Americans need to better understand the role of federal courts. The Supreme Court is supreme only over the lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judicial branch is co-equal under our federal system, nothing more and nothing less. Yet we’ve allowed federal judges to pursue a social agenda that is at odds with a majority of Americans, in essence converting our courthouses into legislatures. In the process average people have lost even more power to affect the laws under which they must live.
government
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution. This means Congress should restrict federal court jurisdiction when necessary, and social matters should be left up to states under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.
government
Useless Conventions
02 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Perhaps the worst thing about party conventions is the rhetoric. Conventions lend themselves to pandering, as few politicians can resist the temptation to tell a national television audience how well they will run the country if elected. The problem is that government is not supposed to run the country- we’re supposed to be free. Conventions bring out the worst passions in voters, passions based on the fatal conceit that government is the solution to all of our problems.
government
Useless Conventions
02 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
For those who believe in limited constitutional government, last week’s convention speeches were almost unbearable. One speaker after another extolled their benevolent plans for America, always in the form of new programs and new spending. Of course no convention would be complete without assurances that even more money will be spent on the failed federal education bureaucracy. The speakers also promised free health care for all, without the slightest explanation of how health care became a “right.” All of these promises were made, of course, without any mention of exactly what constitutional or moral authority authorizes such grand schemes.
government
Useless Conventions
02 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won’t hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Many Americans support the new security measures because they claim to feel safer when the government issues terror alerts and fills the streets with militarized police forces. As one tourist interviewed this week said, “It makes me feel comfortable to know that everything is being checked.” It is ironic that tourists coming to Washington to celebrate the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence are so eager to give up those freedoms with no questions asked.
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. This doesn’t stop governments, including our own, from seeking more control over and intrusion into our lives. As one Member of Congress stated to the press last week, “people who don’t want to be searched don’t need to come on Capitol grounds.” What an insult! The Capitol belongs to the American people who pay for it, not to Congress or the police.
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
It is worth noting that the government rushes first to protect itself, devoting enormous resources to make places like the Capitol grounds safe, while just beyond lies one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. What makes Congress more worthy of protection from terrorists than ordinary citizens?
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
To understand the nature of our domestic response to the September 11th, 2001 attacks, we must understand the nature of government. Government naturally expands, and any crises- whether real or manufactured- serve to justify more and more government power over our lives. Bureaucrats have used the tragedy of 9-11 as an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades, such as warrantless searches, internet monitoring, and access to bank records. It should be no surprise that the recently released report of the 9-11 Commission has but one central recommendation: bigger government and more spending at home and abroad.
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Every new security measure represents another failure of the once-courageous American spirit. The more we change our lives, the more we obsess about terrorism, the more the terrorists have won. As commentator Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains, terrorists in effect have been elevated by our response to 9-11: “They are running the country. They determine our civic life. They shape our private life. They decide how public resources are spent. They may dictate who gets to be the next president. It should be obvious that the government doesn’t object. Not at all. The government benefits, by getting ever more reason for ever more money and power.”
government
Police State USA
09 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 August 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
government
Election Monitoring- Insulting yet Inevitable
16 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Of course neither the OSCE nor any other international organization should have a say in how we conduct elections in the United States. But then again neither should the federal government. Unlike the other member states of the OSCE, the United States has a federalist system where no single national authority runs our elections. Under Article II, presidential elections- as opposed to congressional elections- are run by the states themselves. Hence the electoral college, which essentially gives us 50 state elections.
government
Election Monitoring- Insulting yet Inevitable
16 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 16 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Therefore the invitation was not Secretary Powell’s to extend. I would bet the idea of OSCE monitors might be received with some hostility by many state and local governments.
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The 9-11 Commission report, released late last month, has disrupted the normally quiet Washington August. Various congressional committees are holding hearings on the report this week, even though Congress is not in session, in an attempt to show the government is “doing something” about terrorism in an election year. The Commission recommendations themselves have been accepted reverently and without question, as if handed down from on high.
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure?
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn't need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends.
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves.
government
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
More than anything, our federal government should stop deluding us that more government is the answer. We have far more to fear from an unaccountable government at home than from any foreign terrorist.
government
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
As the 2004 national GOP convention begins Monday, we should be prepared to hear a Republican agenda that sounds more like FDR or Woodrow Wilson than Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. A party that once defined itself by the fundamental conservative principle that government power should be used sparingly and judiciously, now supports a program of bigger government at home, more militarism abroad, and less respect for constitutional freedoms. An examination of the Texas state GOP platform reveals just how far the national Republican party has strayed from true conservative principles and the ideal of limited constitutional government.
government
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
First and foremost, the Texas GOP is serious about reducing the size and scope of government. The party platform calls for strict congressional adherence to the 10th amendment, and the abolition of all federal agencies not authorized under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It urges a return to truly republican government, based on limited federal powers and states rights. The language of the platform is refreshingly frank, with quotes like "We believe that government spending is out of control and needs to be reduced" and "We respect our Founders' intent to restrict the power of the federal government over the states and the people." In fact, whole sections of the document are devoted to worthy subjects like "Limiting the expanse of government power." Contrast these words with what you'll hear this week from the big spending, big government Republicans from Washington.
government
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Texas party platform is similarly bold when it comes to terrorism, civil liberties, and privacy. Rather than promoting the current mantra that security is our ultimate goal, the platform reminds us that liberty is our most important value. The platform calls for repealing portions of the Patriot Act, calls for less information gathering by government, opposes property seizures without due process, and opposes the creation of a national ID card. The platform asserts that "A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government,” and "We believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism.” You won’t hear this kind of language at the national Republican convention.
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card - and it may well become law before the end of the 108th Congress. The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report released in July recommends a federal identification card and, worse, a "larger network of screening points" inside the United States. Does this mean we are to have "screening points" inside our country where American citizens will be required to "show their papers" to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
As I have written recently, the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than ex-government officials and lobbyists advising current government officials that we need more government for America to be safe. Yet it was that same government that failed so miserably on September 11, 2001.
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. We would do well to remember what happened with the Social Security number. It was introduced with solemn restrictions on how it could be used, but it has become a de facto national identifier.
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and "screening points" will actually make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans!
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Instead of forcing all Americans to prove to law enforcement that they are not terrorists, we should be focusing our resources on measures that really will make us safer. For starters, we should take a look at our dangerously porous and unguarded borders. We have seen already this summer how easy it is for individuals possibly seeking to do us harm to sneak across the border into our country. In July, Pakistani citizen Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who is on the federal watch list, reportedly crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico. She was later arrested when she tried to board a plane in New York, but she should have never been able to cross our border in the first place!
government
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
We must take effective measures to protect ourselves from a terrorist attack. That does not mean rushing to embrace legislation that in the long run will do little to stop terrorism, but will do a great deal to undermine the very way of life we should be protecting. Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.
government
Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto
13 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders “universal” mental health screening in schools, it really means “mandatory.” Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children’s most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not?
government
Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto
13 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children’s well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.
government
Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II
20 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office has been overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.
government
Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II
20 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It’s not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.
government
Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II
20 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children’s well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children’s minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.
government
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The IMF provides a perfect illustration of the both the folly of foreign aid and the real motivations behind it. The IMF touts itself as a bank of sorts, although it makes “loans” that no rational bank would consider-- mostly to shaky governments with weak economies and unstable currencies. The IMF has little incentive to operate profitably like a private bank, since its funding comes mostly from a credulous US Congress that demands little accountability. As a result, it is free to make high-risk loans at below- market interest rates.
government
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
In fact, IMF loans often do far more harm than good. At best IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity; at worst the money ends up in the hands of corrupt dictators. Either way, most recipient nations face huge debts they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.
government
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Government-to-government transfers through a middleman like the IMF cannot produce real growth. When capital remains in private hands, it is allocated to its most productive uses as determined by the choices of consumers in the market. Placing capital in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.
government
The IMF Con
27 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
American taxpayers already lend various governments more than $5 billion annually through the IMF, at a yearly cost of over $300 million because of loan defaults and subsidized interest rates. Now the IMF wants to double its pool of funding, which will put taxpayers on the hook for $12 billion in loans at a cost of about $750 million each year. Furthermore, since the IMF creates “drawing rights” accounts that are redeemable in US dollars, it in essence prints US dollars when it increases those drawing rights. This is a clear violation of our national sovereignty, and a vivid example of why we should stop participating in international schemes like the IMF altogether.
government
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
government
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill- More of the Same
11 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week the House of Representative passed the “9-11 Recommendations Implementation Act,” a bill that ostensibly puts in place the ideas endorsed by the 9-11 Commission. As I related to you back in August, however, the commission amounted to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, but they definitely will make us less free. The Act also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs, designed to prove that money can buy us friends. Instead of expanding the federal police state, Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation's vital interests, rather than wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill- More of the Same
11 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federal ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It’s just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics. Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.
government
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill- More of the Same
11 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new office-- the National Intelligence Director-- we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Yet ever since the National Security Act of 1947, the agencies created have been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. When considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, or CIA training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean eliminating the CIA altogether and turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem is that government is not supposed to plan our lives or run the country; we are supposed to be free. That our public discourse strays so far from this principle is an unhappy sign of our times. Those who believe in limited constitutional government should worry every time a politician says, “I have a plan.”
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember, there is a simple dictionary definition for government planning of the production and provision of goods and services: socialism. No matter how much the grand planners from both political parties deny it, many of their programs and proposals are socialist. Federal taxes, regulations, welfare, subsidies, wage controls, price controls, and interest rate manipulations all represent socialist interventions in the economy. True, we do not yet have a fully socialist economy. But that is why we must be vigilant and label socialist proposals for exactly what they are, so we can maintain and expand economic freedom in America.
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Both history and economic theory prove conclusively that centrally-planned economies lower the standard of living for everyone except government elites. Historically, centralized economic planning goes hand in hand with hardship and bloodshed. Modern soft socialism, found in nations like Sweden and France, is beginning to implode of its own weight as governments realize they simply cannot fund cradle-to-grave programs without imposing tax rates that kill any last remnants of productive spark in their citizens.
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
By contrast, capitalism--which is to say economic freedom-- raises the standard of living for everyone in a society. But we must understand what capitalism really is. Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties.
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense. Such was the system envision by the Founding Fathers, who strictly limited regulatory and tax powers in the Constitution. They were tired of having their business affairs managed by the Crown, so they created a servant government that would allow freedom and capitalism to flourish.
government
"I Have a Plan..."
18 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 18 October 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Today’s political rhetoric demonstrates that the servant has become the master. Most politicians, and too many Americans, have accepted the premise that government should plan our lives and control the economy. This subservient mindset encourages political pandering, as candidates strive to convince voters of their superior plans to take care of all of us. For a nation founded upon rugged individualism and self-reliance, the modern political landscape represents a wake-up call. Unless and until Americans begin to reclaim the mentality that made us great, we are destined to slide further into an economic and political malaise that cannot be solved by the grandiose plans of politicians.
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Once again the federal government has reached its “debt ceiling,” and once again Congress is poised to authorize an increase in government borrowing. Between its ever-growing bureaucracies, expanding entitlements, and overseas military entanglements, the federal government is borrowing roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Federal law limits the amount of debt the U.S. Treasury may carry, and the current amount-- a whopping $7.4 trillion-- has been reached once again by a spendthrift federal government. Total federal spending, which now exceeds $2 trillion annually, once took more than 100 years to double. Today it doubles in less than a decade, and the rate is accelerating. When President Reagan entered office in 1981 facing a federal debt of $1 trillion that had piled up over the decades, he declared that figure “incomprehensible.” At its present rate of spending, the federal government will soon amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year.
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Government debt carries absolutely no stigma for politicians in Washington. The original idea behind the debt limit law was to shine a light on government spending, by forcing lawmakers to vote publicly for debt increases. Over time, however, the increases have become so commonplace that the media scarcely reports them-- and there are no political consequences for those who vote for more red ink. It’s far more risky for politicians to vote against special interest spending
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Since 1969, the federal government has spent more that it received in revenues every year. Even supposed single-year surpluses never existed, but were merely an accounting trick based on stealing IOUs from the imaginary Social Security trust fund. Remember that the total federal debt continued to rise rapidly even during the claimed surplus years. Since Congress is incapable of spending only what the Treasury takes in, it must borrow money. Unlike ordinary debts, however, government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money-- they’re repaid by you and future generations.
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It’s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the world’s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks “Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.” Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about “A kind of global balance of financial terror,” noting our dependency on “the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries.”
government
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. We’re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors.
government
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.
government
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The electoral college threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states- derided as “flyover” country-- tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.
government
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.
government
Social Security: House of Cards
08 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem until it becomes acute. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
government
Social Security: House of Cards
08 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”
government
Social Security: House of Cards
08 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
government
The Middle East Quagmire
15 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, many Muslims hate the United States despite the billions we give to their governments.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
22 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week Congress increased the mortgage on your future yet again, by voting to allow the federal government to borrow another $800 billion to pay its bills. This latest increase in the federal debt limit represents merely another chapter in the unprecedented explosion in federal spending that has occurred in recent years. At its present rate of spending, the federal government soon will amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year. By contrast, the entire federal debt was only $1 trillion when President Reagan took office in 1981.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
22 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today. Does anyone really believe this will be the last time, that Congress will tighten its belt if granted one last loan? What a joke! There is only one approach to dealing with an incorrigible spendthrift: cut him off. Congress wastes hundred of billions of dollars every year on countless agencies and programs. Rather than raising the federal government’s credit limit, Congress easily could mandate cuts in the existing bloated budget.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
22 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes-- currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands taxpayers a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
22 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt at current interest rates. What will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy our debts?
government
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
22 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy. The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card and refuse to allow Congress to borrow one red dime.
government
TSA- Bullies at the Airport
29 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
TSA was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Although the National Guard, DOD, FBI, CIA, NSA, and FAA utterly failed to protect American citizens on that tragic day, federal legislators immediately proposed creating yet another government agency. But the commercial flying community did not want airport security federalized, and my office was inundated with messages from airline pilots opposing the creation of TSA. One pilot stated, “I don't want the same people who bring me the IRS and ATF to be in charge of airport security.” But Congress didn't listen to the men and women who spend their working lives flying, so it created another agency that costs billions of dollars, employs thousands of unionized federal workers, and produces poor results.
government
TSA- Bullies at the Airport
29 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Problems within TSA are legion. In the rush to hire a new workforce, 28,000 screeners were put to work without background checks. Some of them were convicted felons. Many were very young, uneducated, with little job experience. At Kennedy and LaGuardia airports in New York, police arrested dozens of TSA employees who were simply stealing valuables from the luggage they were assigned to inspect. Of course TSA has banned locks on checked luggage, leaving passengers with checked bags totally at the mercy of screeners working behind closed doors. None of this is surprising for a government agency of any size, but we must understand the reality of TSA: its employees have no special training, wisdom, intelligence, or experience whatsoever that qualifies them to have any authority over you. They certainly have no better idea than you do how to prevent terrorism. TSA is about new bureaucratic turf and lucrative union makework, not terrorism.
government
TSA- Bullies at the Airport
29 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Airlines should be using every last ounce of their lobbying and public relations power to stop TSA from harassing, delaying, humiliating, and otherwise mistreating their paying passengers. They should be protecting their employees, passengers, and aircraft using private security and guns in the cockpit. After all, who has more incentive to create safe skies than the airlines themselves? Many security-intensive industries, including nuclear power plants, oil refineries, and armored money transports, employ private security forces with excellent results. Yet the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so they cannot be held accountable if another disaster occurs. But airlines are finding out the hard way that millions of Americans simply won't put up with TSA's abuse. Wealthy Americans are using private planes via increasingly popular fractional ownership plans, while ordinary Americans are choosing to drive to their destinations and vacation closer to home. Even business travelers are finding ways to consolidate trips and teleconference. Who can blame anyone for avoiding airports altogether?
government
Gold Exposes the Dollar
06 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
The existence of gold in the economy is a constant reminder of the poor quality of the government paper, and it always poses a threat to replace the paper as the country's money.
government
Gold Exposes the Dollar
06 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The world financial markets are betting against the dollar. Our creditors, particularly Asian central banks, are losing their appetite for U.S. Treasuries. Our federal government’s huge debt and voracious appetite for deficit spending make our economy dependent on the actions of foreign governments and central bankers. Yet few Americans realize the extent to which their own government has sold out American sovereignty by borrowing money overseas.
government
Gold Exposes the Dollar
06 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 December 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Washington seems oblivious to the problem. Our current account deficit is roughly 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness is over $3 trillion. We borrow $1.8 billion every day! Unfortunately, our politicians and the public will ignore the problem until the combination of dollar inflation, price inflation, and higher interest rates brings the borrowing frenzy to an end. Americans, like their government, seem to have lost the ability to live within their means. When their standard of living falls, however, they will look for someone to blame in Washington.
government
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.
government
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
government
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.
government
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain-- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 9 ... Cached
After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 10 ... Cached
It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
government
It Can't Happen Here
20 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 2004 verse 11 ... Cached
Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.
government
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
government
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
government
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
government
Another UN Insult
03 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Let me take this opportunity to wish readers of this weekly column a very happy New Year. I appreciate your willingness to work for liberty by staying informed about the actions of your government, and I hope you will redouble your efforts this year to spread the message of freedom. Remember to visit my congressional website- www.house.gov/paul - throughout 2005 to find new weekly messages and speeches, which you are free to distribute to your family and friends.
government
Another UN Insult
03 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 03 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
This approach gives us the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we grant credibility to the ideas of international law and global government-- signaling our willingness to surrender precious sovereignty in the bargain. Yet we gain little in exchange. Other nations still consider us only too willing to ignore the international rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain deeply mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
In the past ten days, Americans have donated several hundred million dollars to help Asian tsunami victims. Despite this outpouring of support for private charities, the Bush administration has pledged to send at least $350 million in federal aid, a figure that is open-ended and certain to climb. It’s admirable that Americans have been so willing to open their hearts and pocketbooks for the victims of this enormous tragedy, but it’s not the job of the federal government to make a show of generosity to the world with your tax dollars. Remember, government officials cannot be generous or charitable, because the money they dispense does not belong to them.
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The original coalition of donor governments has been disbanded, meaning the United Nations will control all government-funded relief efforts going forward. Surely the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds, yet that’s precisely who will be overseeing the expenditure of our $350 million. Bush administration officials have promised to keep a tight watch over how those tax dollars are spent, but the truth is that we cannot control this money once it’s sent overseas for UN administration.
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
We are mistaken when we assume governments must be the central organizing agents of the relief efforts. Private-sector charities and free-market social cooperation are the real saviors in any natural disaster, despite the intense desire of politicians to be seen as heroes on a white horse-- heroes who use other people’s money. Government-to-government transfers are inherently inefficient, and adding the UN as a middleman will only ensure that even less of the money actually reaches those who need it most.
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Money is critical for disaster relief, but it is not the only issue. Efficient organization of relief services is equally important, and efficiency means circumventing the government bureaucracies that tend to boss people around after natural disasters. Doctors Without Borders, a private group known for providing medical care in poor nations, actually requested that people stop sending them money last week. Their operating model relies on very low overhead and complete independence from governments, and they understand that throwing more and more money at a disaster is not necessarily the best approach.
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explained the problem of government “generosity” for disaster relief in the context of the 2004 Florida hurricanes:
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
“The whole enterprise of disaster aid has become one of the great rackets of modern government. Today we have the disgusting spectacle of senators and presidents coming to visit weather-injured places, as if they have within their capacity the ability to size up damage and make provisions for making it all correct. We are supposed to believe that they know more about the proper course of action than insurance adjusters and property owners.”
government
Private Help for Tsunami Victims
10 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 January 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can. But let’s get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please.
government
UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
17 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Why in the world are we surprised by this oil-for-food scandal? Power without accountability naturally leads to corruption, and the UN is nothing if not unaccountable. Just as Washington politicians are too far removed from the Americans they purport to represent, UN bureaucrats are utterly distanced from the “world citizens” they wish to govern. The UN is nascent global government, no matter what its supporters claim-- it attempts to issue legally binding decrees. Centralized, faraway government is always less accountable than localized government. The average American has no say whatsoever over what happens at the UN, even though he’s forced to pay taxes to support it. Given the reality that UN bureaucrats operate totally outside the bounds of any national laws or oversight, we hardly should be surprised when the organization becomes arrogant, corrupt, and mismanaged.
government
UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
17 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The real problem, however, is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. The ultimate test for the ostensible validity of any government is whether its authority comes from the people it governs, rather than from the use of force or arbitrary edicts. In other words, legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. This is the fundamental democratic principle. It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. Yet so many of those on the political left in America, who claim to believe in democracy above all, vigorously champion the inherently undemocratic UN.
government
Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.
24 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years. Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.
government
Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.
24 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year-- not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue. Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades.
government
Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.
24 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
government
Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.
24 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 24 January 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.
government
Don't Let Congress Fund Orwellian Psychiatric Screening of Kids
31 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 January 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has no legitimate authority to interfere in your family’s intimate health matters. Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, and the drugs regularly prescribed produce serious side effects, especially in children’s developing brains. The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government.
government
Don't Let Congress Fund Orwellian Psychiatric Screening of Kids
31 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 January 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Last fall I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a year-end spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office was overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.
government
Don't Let Congress Fund Orwellian Psychiatric Screening of Kids
31 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 January 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Accordingly, the first bill I introduced this year bill forbids federal funds from being used for any mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents. The bill is known as “The Parental Consent Act of 2005,” or HR 181. This legislation strikes a vital blow for parents who oppose government interference with their parental authority, and strengthens the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.
government
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 12 ... Cached
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
government
The National ID Trojan Horse
14 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 February 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Supporters claim the national ID scheme is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary, and the proponents of the national ID know that every state will have no choice but to comply. Federal legislation that nationalizes standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple.
government
The National ID Trojan Horse
14 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on drivers’ licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID means the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, could know where American citizens are at all times.
government
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
I had an opportunity to ask him about his change of heart when he appeared before the House Financial Services committee last week. Although Mr. Greenspan is a master of evasion, he was surprisingly forthright in his responses to me. In short, he claimed he was wrong about his predictions of calamity for the fiat U.S. dollar, that the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard, and that inflation is well under control. He even made the preposterous assertion that the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending. In other words, he utterly repudiated the arguments he made 40 years ago. Yet this begs the question: If he was so wrong in the past, why should we listen to him now?
government
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Second, inflation is a much greater problem than the federal government admits. Health care, housing, and energy are three areas where costs have risen dramatically. The producer price index is rising at the fastest rate in seven years. Bond prices are rising. To suggest that rapid expansion of the money supply and artificially low interest rates do not ultimately cause price inflation is absurd.
government
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Third, Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Fiat currency and big government go hand-in-hand. Without a gold standard, Congress is free to spend recklessly and fall back on monetary expansion to pay the bills. Politically, it’s easier to print new dollars than raise taxes or borrow overseas. The Fed in essence creates paper reserves that enable Congress to undertake spending measures that far exceed tax revenues. The ill effects of this process are not felt by the politicians, who can always find popular support for new spending. Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are “confiscated through inflation,” as Mr. Greenspan termed it.
government
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization, which the United States joined in 1994, has been disastrous for American sovereignty. A tax bill passed last year provides a vivid example of just how blatantly Congress is surrendering our sovereignty to quasi-governmental bodies like the WTO. For years, high-tax Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American law to comply with European rules.
government
Tax Reform is a Shell Game
07 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 March 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The reform debate is strictly about politics and not serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but don’t propose truly significant tax reductions. Both sides use the outrageous expression “cost to government” when talking about the impact of tax legislation on revenues. This implies that government owns everything, and that any tax rate less than 100% costs government some of its rightful bounty.
government
Tax Reform is a Shell Game
07 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 March 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.
government
Tax Reform is a Shell Game
07 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 March 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 35% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.5 trillion from us-- and more each year-- the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Most Americans are vaguely aware that Congress has run up huge deficits in recent years, but the numbers involved are so large that it’s hard to grasp what our government’s indebtedness really means to us as individuals. The total federal debt is quickly approaching $8 trillion, courtesy of an administration that borrows roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Ultimately, the U.S. government will either repay its debts or default on them. We need only look at the Argentine debt crisis of 2001 for an example of what happens when a government fails to make even minimum payments to creditors. The Argentine economy virtually collapsed, and the value of her money tumbled. This is something most Americans cannot fathom, especially a political class that mistakenly thinks it can’t happen here.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. The federal government still consumes more of the private economy than it ever has except during World War II, despite the administration’s anti-tax rhetoric.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Deficits mean more monetary inflation. Deficit spending necessitates the creation of more fiat dollars by the Federal Reserve to keep the government afloat. Congress knows it can always fall back on the Fed money machine, which of course encourages more deficit spending. It’s a vicious cycle that ultimately makes every dollar you have worth less.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Deficits mean more borrowing overseas, which threatens U.S. sovereignty. Never before has the American economy depended so much on the actions of foreign governments and central banks. China and other foreign creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders.
government
Deficits Make You Poorer
14 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 March 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The economic situation today is reminiscent of the 1970s. The economic malaise of that era resulted from the profligacy of the 1960s, when Congress wildly expanded the welfare state and fought an expensive war in southeast Asia. Large federal deficits led to stagflation-- a combination of high price inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. I fear that today’s economic fundamentals are worse than the 1970s: federal deficits are higher, the supply of fiat dollars is much greater, and personal savings rates are much lower. If the federal government won’t stop spending, borrowing, printing, and taxing, we may find ourselves in far worse shape than 30 years ago.
government
Where is Your Money Going?
21 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week Congress spent another $82 billion in an “emergency” supplemental appropriations bill. There is no emergency, however: Congress simply exceeded its fiscal year budget once again and needs more money. The 13 standard appropriations bills, which provide about $2.4 trillion to run the federal government in 2005, are not enough to satisfy the ravenous spending appetites of Congress and the administration. Hence the so-called emergency supplemental bill, which cravenly combines troop funding with useless foreign aid and domestic pork.
government
Where is Your Money Going?
21 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Supplemental spending bills are particularly galling because “emergency” funds are not subject to the same congressional budget rules. This allows Congress to spend billions of dollars completely outside the stated budget, with little or no public attention. It also underscores how meaningless government budgets really are-- unlike families and businesses, the political class never has to worry about busting the budget.
government
Where is Your Money Going?
21 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 March 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
-$94 million for Sudan, another candidate for charity rather than government aid;
government
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.
government
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say. But morality is not inherent in politics. As law professor Butler Shaffer explains, politics is about obtaining power over the lives of others through government force. Thus politics is a rejection of the sanctity of life. So it is a mistake to assume that a pro-life culture develops through political persuasion or government power. Respect for human life originates with individuals acting according to their consciences. A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government. History teaches us that governments overwhelmingly violate the sanctity of human life rather than uphold it.
government
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
government
Pro-Life Politics?
28 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.
government
Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
04 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Unfortunately, the trust that members of our armed forces put in their government has been breached time and time again, and the recent budget vote represents anther blow to veterans. Even as we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers into Iraq, Congress can’t get its priorities straight.
government
Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
04 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It’s easy to talk about honoring veterans and their sacrifices, even while the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars funding countless unconstitutional programs, but fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.
government
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.
government
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.
government
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.
government
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
government
Why Do We Fund UNESCO?
18 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent... It can stress… the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world political organization… Political unification in some sort of world government will be required…to help the emergence of a single world culture."
government
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
frustrated with our government-controlled health care system. They have concluded
government
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
stores and research them freely on the internet, without government interference in the
government
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 12 ... Cached
But we live in an era of unbridled government regulation of both our personal lives and the economy, and Food and Drug administration bureaucrats burn to regulate supplements in the same manner as prescription drugs.
government
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 14 ... Cached
The FDA simply gives people a false sense of security, while crowding out private watchdog groups that might provide truly disinterested consumer information. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility among people who assume a government stamp of approval means a drug must be safe, and that they need not study a drug before taking it.
government
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 17 ... Cached
Over the past decade the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress bowed to overwhelming public pressure and passed the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act, which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of the Act, which demonstrates how strongly Americans feel about health freedom.
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us-- we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”
government
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.
government
National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration
09 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 09 May 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9-11 attacks. In fact, a 1996 bill sought to do exactly what the REAL ID Act does: transform state drivers’ licenses into de facto national ID cards. At the time, Congress was flooded with calls by angry constituents and the bill ultimately died.
government
National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration
09 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 09 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Proponents of the REAL ID Act continue to make the preposterous claim that the bill does not establish a national ID card. This is dangerous and insulting nonsense. Let’s get the facts straight: The REAL ID Act transforms state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. Nationalizing standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates in a federal bill creates a national ID system, pure and simple. Having the name of your particular state on the ID is meaningless window dressing.
government
National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration
09 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 09 May 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Federally imposed standards for drivers' license and birth certificates make a mockery of federalism and the 10th amendment. While states technically are not forced to accept the federal standards, any refusal to comply would mean their residents could not get a job, receive Social Security, or travel by plane. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.
government
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Economist Murray Rothbard said it best: You don’t need a treaty to have free trade. Governments and quasi-government bodies like the WTO can only politicize and interfere with the natural flow of goods and services across borders. When we cede even a fraction of our sovereignty to an organization like the WTO, we can hardly hope to become more prosperous or more free.
government
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week the US Treasury department issued a warning to the Chinese government with regard to its policy of pegging the value of the Chinese yuan to the US dollar. In essence, the Treasury department accuses China of artificially suppressing the value of its currency by tying it to the dollar, thus making Chinese imports very cheap and worsening our trade imbalance.
government
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
This kind of bluster may serve political interests, but in reality we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the sharp decline in the US dollar. Congress and the Federal Reserve, not China, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the US government must either borrow or print money to operate- both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.
government
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
If anything, the US government should be embarrassed that another nation has depressed its currency by tying it to the US dollar. An economically sound nation would take pride in its currency, one that maintains a stable value and provides incentive for savers. Yet here we are, mad at China for our own sin of flooding the world with cheap dollars.
government
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The root of the problem is the Federal Reserve and our fiat monetary system itself. Since US dollars and other major currencies are not backed by gold, they have no inherent value. Their relative values are subject to political events, and fluctuate constantly in highly volatile currency markets. A fiat system means every dollar you have can be eroded into nothing by the actions of politicians and central bankers. In essence, paper currencies like the US dollar operate as articles of faith-- faith in the policies of the governments and central banks that issue them. When it comes to a government as deeply indebted as our own, that faith is sorely lacking among investors worldwide. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool financial markets over time. The precipitous drop in the US dollar over the past few years is proof that investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government.
government
Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
30 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 30 May 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is never considered.
government
Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
30 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 30 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.
government
Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
30 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 30 May 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.
government
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.
government
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.
government
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.
government
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
NeoCon Global Government
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
government
NeoCon Global Government
13 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 13 June 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?
government
Can the UN Really be Reformed?
20 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever.
government
Can the UN Really be Reformed?
20 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.
government
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
On Friday Congress defeated an amendment I introduced that would have prevented the federal government from moving forward with an Orwellian program to mandate mental health screening of kids in schools. This program, recommended by a presidential commission, has not yet been established at the federal level. However, your tax dollars are being given to states that apply for grants to establish their own programs-- and a full-fledged program run by the Department of Health and Human Services is on the way.
government
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Nearly 100 members of Congress supported my amendment. Many of these members represent Texas and Illinois, two states that already have mental health screening programs in place. They have heard from their constituents, who believe intimate mental health problems should be addressed by parents, kids, and their doctors- not the government. These parents do not appreciate yet another government program that undermines their parental authority.
government
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. We should be especially careful about medicating children with psychotropic drugs when their brains are still developing. Far too many children are being stigmatized by dubious diagnoses like Attention Deficit Disorder, and placed on drugs simply because they exhibit behavior that we used to understand as restlessness or rambunctious horseplay. This is especially true of young boys, who cannot thrive in our increasingly feminized government schools. Sadly, many parents and teachers find it easier to drug energetic boys than discipline them.
government
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Dr. Karen R. Effrem, a pediatrician and leading opponent of government mental health screening, makes the following points about such programs:
government
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
27 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 27 June 2005 verse 14 ... Cached
Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but that does not mean it is the role of government to subject every child to arbitrary screening without the consent of parents. Most Americans still understand that certain things are none of the government’s business, even if Congress does not. If you are a parent, do everything you can to protect your children by demanding to be notified of any screening program in their schools. As a voter, let your state and federal legislators know that you don’t want tax dollars spent on mental health screening programs. If we act now, we still can prevent the federal government from creating a nationwide, mandatory program that will place millions of American youngsters into a stigmatized, drugged, mental health ghetto.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation’s highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates on this holiday based on rebellion against government.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The City of New London, Connecticut essentially acted as a strongman by seizing private property from one group of people for the benefit of a more powerful private interest. For its services, the city will be paid a tribute in the form of greater taxes from the new development. In any other context, what’s happening in Connecticut properly would be described as criminal. However, the individuals losing their homes understand that stealing is stealing, even if the people responsible are government officials. The silver lining in the Kelo case may be that the veneer of government benevolence is being challenged.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Kelo has several important lessons for all of us. We are witnessing the destruction of any last remnants of the separation of powers doctrine, a doctrine our founders considered critical to freedom. The notion that the judicial branch of government serves as a watchdog to curb legislative and executive abuses has been entirely exposed as an illusion. Judges not only fail to defend our freedoms, they actively infringe upon them by acting as de facto legislators. Thus Kelo serves as a stark reminder that we cannot rely on judges to protect our freedoms.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is folly to believe we will regain lost freedoms if only the right individuals are appointed to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, have appointed some of our very worst Supreme Court Justices. In today’s political context, it frankly matters very little whom President Bush appoints to replace Justice O’Connor. Even the most promising jurist can change radically over the course of a lifetime appointment. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and the fixation on individuals as saviors of our freedoms is misplaced. America will regain lost freedoms only when her citizens wake up and reclaim a national sense of self-reliance, individualism, and limited government. A handful of judges cannot save a nation from itself.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The Kelo case also demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it’s easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope that things don’t get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.
government
Lessons from the Kelo Decision
04 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 July 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases-- not only when it serves our interests. The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut could start by removing from office the local officials who created the problem in the first place.
government
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The White House attempted to quell criticism that America is not doing enough to save Africa by announcing that the U.S. would double its economic aid to the continent, from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion, over the next few years. Neither Congress nor the American people were consulted prior to this pronouncement, I might add. I think the public might not share the administration’s generous mood, especially as we spend billions in Iraq and face single year deficits of $500 billion. Frankly, a federal government with nearly $8 trillion in debt has no business giving money to anybody.
government
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
British Prime Minister Tony Blair went a step further, promising that the G8 nations will provide $50 billion in economic aid to Africa by 2010, along with canceling hundreds of millions in debt owed to taxpayers of several western governments. But why should foreign leaders have any say over how American tax dollars are spent? Is our annual federal budget now subject to foreign scrutiny and approval? America is an incredibly charitable nation, as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by private citizens for tsunami relief last year. We don’t need lectures or guidance from the world when it comes to foreign aid.
government
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
African poverty is rooted in government corruption, corruption that actually is fostered by western aid. We should ask ourselves a simple question: Why is private capital so scarce in Africa? The obvious answer is that many African nations are ruled by terrible men who pursue disastrous economic policies. As a result, American aid simply enriches dictators, distorts economies, and props up bad governments. We could send Africa $1 trillion, and the continent still would remain mired in poverty simply because so many of its nations reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
government
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
As commentator Joseph Potts explains, western money enables dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to gain and hold power without the support of his nation’s people. African rulers learn to manipulate foreign governments and obtain an independent source of income, which makes them far richer and more powerful than any of their political rivals. Once comfortably in power, and much to the horror of the western governments that funded them, African dictators find their subjects quite helpless and dependent. Potts describes this process as giving African politicians the “power to impoverish.” The bottom line is that despite decades of western aid, more Africans than ever are living in extreme poverty. Foreign aid simply doesn’t work.
government
What Should America do for Africa?
11 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 July 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The president is promising money we don’t have to solve a problem we didn’t cause. Americans have the freedom to do everything in their power to alleviate African suffering, whether by donating money or working directly in impoverished nations. But government-to-government foreign aid doesn’t work, and it never has. We should stop kidding ourselves and ignore the emotionalist pleas of rock stars. Suffering in Africa cannot be helped by delusional, feel-good government policies.
government
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however-- especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.
government
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry-- so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost-- if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.
government
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.
government
The Sausage Factory
01 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 01 August 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
government
Immigration and the Welfare State
08 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 08 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.
government
Immigration and the Welfare State
08 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 08 August 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual- including a potential terrorist- can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
government
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and states’ rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.
government
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.
government
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
22 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Few Americans truly understand how our Federal Reserve system enables Congress to spend far beyond its means, but the cycle of spending and printing money affects all of us. Simply put, the more money our Treasury prints, the less every dollar is worth. Our pure fiat money system, in place since the last vestiges of a gold standard were eliminated in the early 1970s, has reduced the value of your savings by 80%. Disregard the government’s Consumer Price Index, which substantially underreports price inflation. Monetary inflation is true inflation, and we only need to look at the cost of homes, cars, energy, and medical care to recognize that a dollar buys far less today than ever.
government
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
22 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Second, federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare will not be “fixed” by politicians who are unwilling to make hard choices and admit mistakes. Demographic trends will force tax increases and greater deficit spending to maintain benefits for millions of older Americans who are dependent on the federal government. Faced with uncomfortable financial realities, Congress will seek to avoid the day of reckoning by the most expedient means available-- and the Federal Reserve undoubtedly will accommodate Washington by printing more dollars to pay the bills.
government
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
22 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
government
Hey, Big Spender
29 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 29 August 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Congressional budget agreements really don’t mean much. A congressional budget passed in 2005 has absolutely no impact on spending decisions in the future, and will be quickly forgotten as all past budgets have been. No politician or government official in 2010 will be heard to say, “Gee, we promised back in 2005 to spend less than this, so we better stick to that pledge.” Only a fool can believe that Congress will consider itself bound by past budgets, and constitutionally the budget is passed one year at a time. Anything else is just talk. Congress can make all the deals it wants, but it can only implement a budget for the coming fiscal year.
government
Hey, Big Spender
29 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 29 August 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
What is being called a "balanced budget" by 2010 is merely a hopeful projection of spending, matched with projected, hypothetical economic forecasts. To say the federal government can correctly predict exactly how the economy-- which is the sum total of the spending and savings habits of everyone in the nation-- will behave five years from now is ludicrous.
government
Hey, Big Spender
29 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 29 August 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
For more than 25 years there have been promises about balancing the budget five years out using government forecasts. It’s always the same story: "Just give us a little more time, and we promise we’ll stop spending so much. We just have to fix X, Y, and Z first." Congress is like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, without the slightest intention of doing so. The voting public is like the battered wife who somehow keeps believing the promises.
government
Hey, Big Spender
29 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 29 August 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
The bottom line is that everyone in Washington says they oppose pork and want government to spend less, but few in Congress actually vote that way. Most DC politicians are far too dependent on special interest money to make any waves. “Go along to get along” is the creed of the political class, and nothing will change unless and until the American public stops electing and re-electing the big spenders to office.
government
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress can help immediately by suspending federal gas taxes, which alone add 18.4 cents to the cost of every gallon. The state of Texas adds another 20 cents per gallon in taxes. Citizens are always asked to sacrifice during crises; why are governments never expected to do the same? Immediate, short-term relief for every American at the pump could be a reality when Congress returns to Washington this week. Congress should pass, and the president should immediately sign, a bill suspending the federal gas tax. This would create pressure for states to do the same. This is the simplest, fastest, and soundest way to drop gas prices and ease the financial impact of Katrina. Wouldn’t it be better to leave that money in the pockets of the American public at least temporarily, especially as we’re all being asked to provide financial help to hurricane victims?
government
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Many people are upset with oil companies, which is understandable given the frustrations of steadily rising gas prices. But the fundamental problem is not a lack of regulation or price gouging, but rather the lack of price competition between oil companies. The maze of regulatory and environmental rules makes it nearly impossible for would-be competitors to explore new domestic sources of oil or build new refineries. When was the last time you heard of a new start-up oil company? This is because of too much government regulation, not too little. History proves time and time again that the best way to provide any good is too allow markets to operate freely.
government
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The bulk of our refining capacity is concentrated along the gulf coast, leaving the nation’s gas supply vulnerable to annual hurricanes. Without new oil exploration and new refineries, our domestic capacity is fixed. As demand rises with the growth of the U.S. population, we find ourselves increasingly dependent on oil-rich nations-- many of which have questionable governments. With worldwide demand for oil increasing, and our domestic supply fixed, we face a new era. We must increase domestic production, pure and simple. We cannot afford to be held hostage by unrealistic environmental rules that threaten to strangle our economy. Existing refineries cannot carry the nation if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices.
government
Gas, Taxes, and Middle East Policy
05 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 September 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
It is easy to call for drastic government action in the emotional aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but we must not ignore history, logic, and basic economics. The Nixon administration imposed price controls on gasoline, but the result was shortages and long lines at the pump. The price mechanism is necessary to create an incentive for oil companies to increase the amount of refined gasoline available. Price controls also discourage the development of alternative fuels. When President Reagan later lifted price controls, worldwide oil production increased dramatically and gas prices plummeted.
government
Responding to Katrina
12 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 September 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
When it comes to government relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Congress must be very careful with the nearly $52 billion dollars approved last week-- almost all of which goes to FEMA. The original $10 billion authorized by Congress for hurricane relief was spent in a matter of days, and there is every indication that FEMA is nothing but a bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability. Any federal aid should be distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA. We cannot let the Katrina tragedy blind us to fiscal realities, namely the staggering budget deficits and national debt that threaten to devastate our economy.
government
Responding to Katrina
12 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 September 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made - before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.
government
Responding to Katrina
12 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 September 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.
government
Responding to Katrina
12 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 September 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Once again the federal government is attempting to impose a top-down solution to the disaster. No one questions where this $52 billion will come from. The answer, of course, is that the federal government simply is going to print the money. There will be no reductions in federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair.
government
Deficit Spending and Katrina
19 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 September 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The tragic scenes of abject poverty and distress in New Orleans prompted two emotional reactions. One side claims Katrina proves there is not enough government welfare and government spending in general. The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into FEMA, the very agency that performed so badly, while giving it extraordinary new police powers. Both sides simply assume hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending are needed. But history shows us that “compassionate” deficit spending hurts poor people the most, by devaluating the value of the dollar.
government
Deficit Spending and Katrina
19 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 September 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Katrina also has exposed the failed welfare policies of the past 60 years. In New Orleans, hundreds of thousands of impoverished citizens lacked any resources to safeguard their families and their property from the storm. Virtually everyone who stayed behind was poor. It is time to recognize that government assistance over several generations did not eradicate poverty in New Orleans, but rather created a deadly form of dependency on government.
government
Deficit Spending and Katrina
19 September 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 September 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. As with all rapid government expenditures, the amount of waste and mismanagement will be staggering. Congress knows it won’t need to raise taxes to pay the bill, because the Federal Reserve will accommodate reckless deficit spending.
government
Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform
03 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United States? What if the US is determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?
government
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Instead of viewing federal judicial nominees as liberals or conservatives, we ought to be viewing them as activists or originalists. Judicial activism is a popular and often misused term in politics today, but if we define it properly we can better understand the problem with our courts. Judicial activism is the practice of judges legislating from the bench, by interpreting law in a manner that creates an outcome to fit their political views. But judicial activism is more than this. Activist federal judges not only craft laws, they also ignore the laws in place-- particularly the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the Constitution and underscored by the 9th and 10th amendments. By ignoring the strict constitutional limits placed on the federal government and bulldozing states’ rights, federal judges opened the door to the growth of wildly extra-constitutional government in the 20th century. Activist courts enable activist government.
government
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess. Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake.
government
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
How did this come to pass? Unfortunately, our nation has embraced the flawed notion that only scholars, judges, or attorneys are qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution. We have come to accept that constitutional law must be revealed to us from on high by our black-robed masters. Yet nothing could be further from the ideal of constitutional jurisprudence envisioned by our founders. The Constitution is written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it. It simply establishes a system of shared, limited power between the three branches of the federal government, while reserving most government power to the states themselves.
government
Our Political Federal Courts
10 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 10 October 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.
government
Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?
17 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The panelists also misused the term “tax subsidy” over and over. A true subsidy is very simple: certain individuals or businesses receive taxpayer money from the government. But the panel members clearly have accepted the thoroughly leftist idea that all income belongs to the state, and therefore the state “subsidizes” you by letting you keep some of the money you earned. This is nonsense. If the government uses tax dollars to build you a house, you have received a subsidy. Taxpayers have given you something. But if you pay less in income taxes because of the mortgage interest deduction, you have not been “subsidized” by anyone. The government has not given you something; it simply has taken less. What kind of tax reform proposals can we expect from people who can’t understand the fundamental difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?
government
Who Opposes Simpler, Lower Taxes?
17 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 October 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Government spending is the problem! When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.
government
A Free Market in Gasoline
31 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 October 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Many Americans understandably are upset with the sharp spike in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August, and are concerned by reports of oil company profits. But we must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.
government
A Free Market in Gasoline
31 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 October 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Federal subsidies and regulations are largely responsible for limiting the supply of refined gasoline in this country. The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added. Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices. We need more competition, which means we need less government.
government
A Free Market in Gasoline
31 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil. Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: “Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil- indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government’s restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement.”
government
A Free Market in Gasoline
31 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 October 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much.
government
A Free Market in Gasoline
31 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 31 October 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration’s immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.
government
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
* $638 million for the unelected Musharraf government in Pakistan;
government
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
* $110 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, ostensibly for economic development, although the recipient nations include oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why in the world are American taxpayers giving welfare to OPEC governments?
government
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
* $95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund, which meddles with foreign governments but never seems to change them;
government
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.
government
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 15 ... Cached
In many cases, foreign aid money simply distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. In countries that pursue harmful economic policies, an infusion of US cash only exacerbates and prolongs problems. No amount of money can help nations that reject property rights, free markets, and the rule of law.
government
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it.
government
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The budget reconciliation bill reduces spending by a mere $5.6 billion in a 2006 budget of nearly $2.5 trillion. This represents just a fraction of one percent, a laughable amount. Does anyone seriously believe the federal budget cannot be trimmed more than this? Consider that the federal budget was only about $1 trillion in 1990, a mere 15 years ago- and government was far too large and too intrusive then. After all the talk about deficit spending, this is the best a Republican congress and Republican president can come up with? What a farce.
government
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program. But we've reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises. Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause. And we're doing it to ourselves, from within.
government
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?
government
Slashing the Budget?
21 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 November 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Republicans trumpeted the measure as a huge victory for fiscal conservatism, while Democrats were enraged by the supposed “slashing” of government programs. The uproar shows just how entrenched the spending culture has become on Capitol Hill-- even insignificant reductions in the rate of growth in federal spending are seen as earth-shattering. But if we’re really serious about cutting federal spending, why not simply cut 10% from the 2006 budget?
government
Slashing the Budget?
21 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 November 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember, the same Republicans claiming victory for slowing spending next year also passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which will add over $50 billion to the federal budget in 2006 alone! In just one year the Medicare bill adds ten times in new spending what the budget bill purportedly cuts. So nobody who voted for the Medicare drug bill has any business talking about government spending. Neither do those who refuse to consider cutting one penny from the military and foreign aid budgets. You cannot conduct a foreign policy based on remaking whole nations using military force and pretend to operate a frugal government.
government
Slashing the Budget?
21 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 November 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The Democrats, by contrast, never want to cut spending on anything, no matter how much the federal budget grows-- and it’s doubled in 15 years. A $2.4 trillion federal budget is woefully inadequate in their eyes, and ten years from now they’ll say the same thing about a $5 trillion budget. No amount of spending will ever satisfy those who believe government should address every human problem and involve itself in every aspect of our lives.
government
Slashing the Budget?
21 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 November 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The budget bill fails to address the root of the spending problem--this belief that Congress continually must create new federal programs and agencies. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities-- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-- projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of a smoke-and-mirrors approach, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to fund only those government functions that are consistent with the Constitution.
government
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
What I mean is that Mr. Bernanke appears to have embraced the idea that the Federal Reserve can create prosperity more than Mr. Greenspan ever did. Like his predecessor, Mr. Bernanke views our system of fiat currency as a tool for creating wealth out of thin air by producing more dollars, whether paper or electronic. But he seems to take things further than Greenspan by refusing even to consider the destructive consequences of monetary expansion. In fact, he earned dubious notoriety for this quote in a 2002 speech discussing the supposed threat of deflation in the American economy: "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."
government
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
I encourage all Americans to learn more about the Federal Reserve system and what it means for our economic future. An excellent resource is economist Murray Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done to our Money," which provides a brief yet devastating critique of centralized banking and the reckless government spending it enables. We need to demystify the Federal Reserve to understand the enormous political and economic impact of a system that essentially allows government to print money at will to pay its bills.
government
What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
05 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 December 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. Expansion costs money, and politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now manage all of the world’s major currencies.
government
What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
05 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 December 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the money supply, and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
government
What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
05 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 05 December 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
What does this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.
government
Don't Complicate Immigration Reform
12 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
First, enforce existing laws by controlling the borders once and for all. We must recognize that true national defense means defending our own borders and coastlines. This is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. This means it’s time to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas military adventures and countless alphabet soup domestic agencies. Borders should be the number one national priority, plain and simple. Does the federal government have something better to do?
government
Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform
19 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 December 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve “operational control of the borders”? Shouldn’t the federal government already have “operational control of the borders”?
government
Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform
19 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 December 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Congress and the administration are still way behind the American people on the immigration issue. American culture is rooted in political and legal traditions based on liberty and constitutionally limited government—and we rightfully expect immigrants to respect and learn about those traditions. Real immigration reform, based on asserting our sovereign right to retain a cultural identity, will be a huge issue in next year’s congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election.
government
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.
government
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?
government
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
government
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
02 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Regardless of the outcome, we must have the courage and integrity to admit that our founders' wise counsel against foreign entanglements was correct. Once the rationale for the war shifted from weapons of mass destruction to installing democracy, our credibility became dependent on true Iraqi sovereignty-- even if the government that emerges is not to our liking. True sovereignty for Iraq cannot be realized unless and until we end our occupation and stop trying to engineer political outcomes.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
02 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Meanwhile, prosperity at home cannot be achieved if we allow government to engage in the kind of runaway spending that marked the final months of 2005. The fiscal year 2006 budget, already bloated with billions of dollars in unnecessary and counterproductive spending, became an 11th hour Christmas grab bag for every group or industry seeking a handout. Several federal agencies and bureaucracies needlessly received even more funding than originally requested by the administration.
government
Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
02 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
It is easy for us to lose sight of the primary responsibility of our government during troubled times, and many Americans are anxious to have the administration spend any amount and ignore the Constitution to achieve some mythical standard of security. Yet we should not forget that peace and prosperity are best secured by a government that secures liberty for its citizens. The best formula for securing liberty is limited government at home and a noninterventionist foreign policy abroad. Americans deserve better from their government in 2006 than huge deficits, scandals, domestic spying, and mindless partisanship.
government
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
09 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
government
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
09 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
The Washington political scandals dominating the news in recent weeks may be disheartening, but they cannot be considered surprising. We live in a time when the U.S. government is the largest and most powerful state in the history of the world. Today's federal government consists of fifteen huge departments, hundreds of agencies, thousands of programs, and millions of employees. It spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year. The possibilities for corruption in such an immense and unaccountable institution are endless.
government
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
09 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Americans understandably expect ethical conduct from their elected officials in Washington. But the whole system is so out of control that it's simply unrealistic to place faith in each and every government official in a position to sell influence. The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society. The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes-- and the temptation for politicians to sell them-- is enormous. Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution. The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.
government
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
09 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The fundamental problem is not with campaigns or politicians primarily, but rather with popular support for the steady shift from a relatively limited, constitutional federal government to the huge leviathan of today.
government
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
09 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 January 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. It's time to reconsider exactly what we want the federal government to be in our society. So long as it remains the largest and most powerful institution in the nation, it will remain endlessly susceptible to corruption.
government
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
government
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate hearings regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court demonstrated that few in Washington view the Constitution as our founders did. The Constitution first and foremost is a document that limits the power of the federal government. It prevents the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court from doing all kinds of things. But judging by last week's hearings, the Constitution is an enabling document, one that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in nearly every aspect of our lives.
government
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.
government
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week I mailed each of my congressional colleagues a copy of a speech outlining my views on the lobbying and ethics scandals engulfing Washington. I’m afraid many of them won’t like my conclusion: to reduce corruption in government, we must make government less powerful-- and hence less interesting to lobbyists.
government
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
I find it hard to believe that changing the congressional ethics rules or placing new restrictions on lobbyists will do much good. After all, we already have laws against bribery, theft, and fraud. We already have ethics rules in Congress. We already have campaign finance reform. We already require campaigns and lobbyists to register with the federal government and disclose expenditures. We already require federal employees, including the president and members of congress, to take an oath of office. None of it is working, so why should we think more rules, regulations, or laws will change anything?
government
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Lobbying, whether we like it or not, is constitutionally protected. The First amendment unequivocally recognizes the right of Americans to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We can’t deal with corruption in government by ignoring the Constitution.
government
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
I don’t believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people-- always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. What’s another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.
government
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
The dependency on government generated by welfarism and warfarism, made possible by our shift from a republican to a democratic system of government, is the real scandal of the ages. If we merely tinker with current attitudes about the role of the federal government in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution.
government
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
government
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
government
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Later this month our Treasury once again will hit the "debt ceiling," a figure based on federal law that limits the amount of money the federal government can borrow. The total amount of federal debt as of this month is a staggering $8.2 trillion, a number that is almost incomprehensible. The effects of this debt, however, will be felt by all of us in the form of inflation, higher interest rates, and a weakened U.S. economy.
government
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke faces a difficult dilemma. Our overseas creditors, particularly Asian central banks, already hold billions of U.S. dollars and are losing their appetite for lending us more money. They are wary of our enormous federal deficits and reckless economic policies. Ask yourself a simple question: would you loan the U.S. government money, given its spending habits? It's clear we can't go on borrowing $1.8 billion every day to finance the government!
government
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
The simplest way for the Fed to overcome these fears and maintain worldwide enthusiasm for the dollar is to raise interest rates and stop putting new dollars into circulation. But the Greenspan "boom" was based on the opposite approach. By cutting interest rates to the bone and vastly increasing the money supply, Greenspan made Americans feel rich-- first with the stock market bubble of the 1990s, and later with the housing bubble that is only now starting to burst. Greenspan was brilliant at making debt feel like wealth, but Mr. Bernanke inherits a very difficult situation. To maintain the value of the dollar, he must put the brakes on the money supply and raise the cost of borrowing. Such tough action is unlikely, however, given Mr. Bernanke's troubling public statements about the benefits of government printing presses.
government
The Ever-Growing Federal Budget
13 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 February 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
There has been a great deal of talk in Washington about scandals lately, but few seem to understand that enormous federal budgets provide the mother's milk for every backroom deal, questionable earmark, and sleazy lobbying trick. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously vote for enormous budget bills, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we consider that the federal budget in 1990 was far less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was not big enough just 16 years ago?
government
The Ever-Growing Federal Budget
13 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 February 2006 verse 12 ... Cached
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do the proposed expenditures, and the resulting taxes, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the budget process.
government
Katrina Relief Six Months Later
20 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Senate concluded hearings last week on the federal mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and the findings were troubling. In short, the federal government wasted literally billions of dollars responding to the disaster, dollars that did little to help Katrina victims at all.
government
Katrina Relief Six Months Later
20 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Congress reacted to Katrina in typical Washington-knows-best fashion. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with no planning or debate, mostly to show that government was “doing something.” Political grandstanding masqueraded as compassion. As with all rapid government expenditures, the money was spent badly. Every member of Congress must have known that throwing $50 billion at FEMA, the very agency that failed so badly to prepare for Katrina, would not turn out well.
government
Katrina Relief Six Months Later
20 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
All federal aid for Katrina should have been distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA and Homeland Security. Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government at both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood no doubt would have been better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction.
government
Katrina Relief Six Months Later
20 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
It’s not compassionate simply to throw money at a problem, especially when that money is wasted and does not help the very people who need it most. It’s not compassionate for politicians to spend money that doesn’t belong to them. It’s not compassionate to instill false hope that Washington can solve every problem and respond to every emergency. It’s certainly not compassionate to create huge deficits that hurt poor people the most through inflation, as government prints more and more money to pay its bills.
government
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?
government
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security.
government
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport?
government
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
I strongly support those governors who have indicated they do not intend to allow the federal government to dictate who will run their ports. I hope Texas state officials display the same determination and resist a potentially dangerous federal dictate regarding the operation of our ports.
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
How Government Debt Grows
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Congress raised it many times over the last 15 years, despite the supposed “surpluses” of the Clinton years. Those single-year surpluses were based on accounting tricks that treated Social Security funds as general revenues. In reality the federal government ran deficits throughout the 1990s, and the federal debt rose steadily.
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes at least 25% of the American economy and still can't balance its books is a government that vastly overspends.
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn't matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much ultimately will destroy its own economy. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance.
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.”
government
How Government Debt Grows
13 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 March 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree.
government
Another "Emergency" Spending Bill
20 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress funds the federal government through 13 enormous appropriations bills, but even an annual budget of more than $2 trillion is not enough to satisfy Washington’s appetite for new spending. As a result, a new category of spending bill has emerged, known as the “emergency supplemental” appropriation. There’s no real emergency, however; Congress simply needs a 14th spending bill as a grab bag filled with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens of amendments to be added to the supplemental bill, all with more money for somebody.
government
Another "Emergency" Spending Bill
20 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The real emergency is in Washington, where Congress is spending and borrowing America into a perfect storm. As economist James Turk explains, the federal government now relies upon debt to finance 20% of its spending. Low interest rates during the 1990s and early 2000s kept interest payments on government debts- Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills- somewhat manageable. During the same period, however, the Federal Reserve greatly increased the money supply, which has caught up to us in the form of price inflation. The Fed now must raise rates to combat this inflation, but higher interest rates will chill economic growth and slow tax revenue. To quote Mr. Turk, “The federal government faces a potentially toxic mix of constrained revenues, soaring expenditures, ballooning debt, and rising interest rates.”
government
Another "Emergency" Spending Bill
20 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
This is the real emergency that must be addressed in Washington, and the only solution is to reduce government spending substantially. If we don’t put the brakes on the spending spree soon, we may find ourselves facing another period of economic malaise that rivals the 1930s.
government
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week in this column I wrote of a perfect economic storm facing America, caused by a federal government that spends, borrows, and prints so much money that our dollars are eroding in value at an alarming rate. Year after year our federal government spends beyond its revenues, prints new money to pay its debts, and borrows hundreds of billions abroad in the form of Treasury obligations that someday must be paid. With too many dollars and debt instruments in circulation, and no political will in Washington to cut spending, we've created a monster. Our perceived prosperity depends on keeping the great debt and credit engine pumping, but the only way to attract new lenders to fuel the engine is higher interest rates. At some point one of two things must happen: either the party in Washington ends, or the supremacy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency ends. It's a sobering thought, but a choice must be made.
government
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
How did this happen? How did we get to such a state? The answer is found in the nature of politics itself. The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.
government
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
I believe one of the greatest threats facing this nation is the willful economic ignorance of the political class. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.
government
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frederic Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
government
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril.
government
Cough Up
10 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
April 15th, our national tax day, comes this year just as Congress prepares to pass the 2007 federal budget. If you think paying taxes was painful this year, I’ve got some bad news: the new budget is a grotesque illustration of everything wrong with the federal government. At $2.7 trillion, it’s the largest budget in U.S. history by a long shot. Like it or not, the pressure to raise your taxes will be enormous in coming years no matter who controls Congress. The amount of money government spends, borrows, and prints simply cannot be sustained.
government
Cough Up
10 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. It requires them to confess their actions over the past year to the IRS in excruciating detail. It's an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month.
government
Cough Up
10 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Most people understandably want a simpler income tax system, but it’s useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2.7 trillion from us, the only question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2.7 trillion, or anything close to it, to fund the proper constitutional functions of the federal government.
government
Cough Up
10 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 April 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
government
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the embargo.
government
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up other nations.
government
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
government
Sanctions against Iran
17 April 2006 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2006 verse 13 ... Cached
Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people inevitably will make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well-being of Americans.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
A recent Hudson Institute study found that, last year, American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
There are good reasons why the US Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced “charity” is not charity at all, but rather it is theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause it does not negate the original act of theft.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy for example. The “aid” money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins “democratic” elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Sadly, this does not happen when government aid is mismanaged. More often than not, the very government agencies that mismanaged the assistance in the first place come back to Congress for a budget increase to solve the problem they created.
government
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
So we should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.
government
Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
08 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
But price controls won’t work, and allegations of price gouging and “windfall profits” amount to nothing more than congressional grandstanding. No government official or politician is fit to define a “fair” price for gas or a “fair” profit for oil companies. This is not the Soviet Union. The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies.
government
Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
08 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
The price of oil, like everything else, depends on supply and demand. What we really need to focus on is how government keeps the supply of refined gasoline too low. This is not as easy as demanding price controls, and does not fit into 30-second sound bites. But as with so many issues, we must peel away decades of government interference to really understand the problem.
government
Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
08 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere.
government
Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
08 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
And in the meantime, let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. That alone would save Americans 18.4 cents per gallon. By contrast, oil companies only make about 10 cents per gallon. So maybe it’s government that’s being greedy.
government
The Declining Dollar Erodes Personal Savings
15 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
The world financial markets are betting against the dollar and against Mr. Bernanke’s chances of correcting the imbalances caused by Alan Greenspan. Our creditors, particularly Asian central banks, are losing their appetite for U.S. Treasuries. Our federal government’s huge debt and voracious appetite for deficit spending make our economy dependent on the actions of foreign governments and central bankers. Yet few Americans realize the extent to which their own government has sold out American sovereignty by borrowing money overseas.
government
Avoiding War with Iran
22 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Similarly in Iraq, our ouster of Saddam Hussein will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
government
Avoiding War with Iran
22 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Government power in Iran is divided, and President Ahmadinejad—the man responsible for hateful comments about Israel- does not control their nuclear policy. We should ignore him as a pariah, and deal instead with Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s National Security Council, who has made several reasonable statements about the US and shows a desire to have direct diplomatic talks.
government
Stop the NAIS
29 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers out of business. The National Animal Identification System, known as NAIS, is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock-- cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses-- to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.
government
Stop the NAIS
29 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners face a costly mandate if NAIS becomes law.
government
Stop the NAIS
29 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.
government
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 2 ... Cached
This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas.
government
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.
government
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power. Also, it is important to remember that forced charity is not charity at all. While I believe strongly in the moral value of helping the less fortunate, charity must come voluntarily from the heart, not under threat from the IRS.
government
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide.
government
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Also, this year Congress will nearly double funding for the monstrous Millennium Challenge program. This is billed as a different kind of foreign aid, in that it only goes to governments that pursue “free market” economic and social reforms. Of course this is a waste of money: governments that pursue wise economic policies will attract much more in foreign private investment than the US government can send them. The true reward for sound economic policies is increased prosperity. Foreign aid does not purchase that prosperity but in fact distorts internal markets and props up inefficient companies.
government
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
05 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 05 June 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Americans concerned about high taxes, out of control gas prices, and economic downturn should think hard about what the US government is doing with the money it takes from them. The greatest “foreign assistance” we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity.
government
Why Won't Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
12 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
That’s why the estate tax is so destructive. Since people don’t want the government controlling their property when they die, they twist themselves into pretzels finding ways to avoid turning assets over to the IRS. Some create elaborate trusts to minimize their taxes, supporting the economically wasteful estate-planning industry. Others simply lose their entrepreneurial spark, stop working, and spend their money-- succumbing to a “die broke” attitude.
government
Why Won't Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
12 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Again, the issue is control. People who have worked hard to build wealth simply cannot stand to see government take a big chunk of their assets when they die, so they do anything they can--even economically harmful things—to prevent it. This is what supporters of the estate tax cannot seem to understand.
government
Congress Rejects UN Taxes
19 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
UN bureaucrats think rich nations like America ought to give more money to poor nations- a lot more- simply because we’re rich. Never mind the billions of foreign aid tax dollars we send overseas every year; never mind the billions donated to overseas charities by Americans, the most charitable people on earth. The UN mindset blames the western world for poverty everywhere, assuming that our relative wealth must have come at the expense of the third world. The poor countries themselves are never deemed responsible for their own predicaments, despite their often corrupt governments, lack of property rights, and hostility toward wealth-producing capitalism. Somehow, it’s always our fault. So the UN holds conferences to talk about how we should pay to make things right, and the idea of a UN tax naturally arises.
government
Congress Rejects UN Taxes
19 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 19 June 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Understand that the UN views itself as the emerging global government, and like all governments, it needs money to operate. The goal, which the UN readily admits, is to impose a comprehensive set of global laws on all of us- laws that supersede sovereign national governments. To do this, the UN needs a global military, a global police force, international courts, offices around the globe, and plenty of highly-paid international bureaucrats. All of this costs money.
government
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
government
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
government
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement
26 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 26 June 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
government
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
They declared, in terms that still are radical today, that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights that government neither grants nor can take away.
government
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut—but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th.
government
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Our basic problem is that we have lost sight of the simple premise that guided the actions of our founding fathers. That premise? The government that governs least is the government that governs best.
government
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 12 ... Cached
When we cut the size of government, our taxes will fall. When we reduce the power of the federal bureaucracy, the cost of government will plummet. And when we firmly fix our eyes, undistracted, on the principles of liberty, Americans truly will be free. That should be our new declaration.
government
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Mr. Bernanke has stated quite candidly that he will use government printing presses to stimulate the economy as necessary. He is famous for joking that he would endorse dropping money from helicopters if needed to prevent an economic slowdown. This is nothing short of an express policy to destroy our money by inflation. Every new dollar erodes the value of existing dollars based on simple supply and demand. Does anyone really believe the Treasury can make us rich simply by printing more money?
government
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The coming dollar crisis is not likely to be “fixed” by politicians who are unwilling to make hard choices, admit mistakes, and spend less money. Demographic trends will place even greater demands on Congress to maintain benefits for millions of older Americans who are dependent on the federal government.
government
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the government’s business. Congressman Jones introduced legislation that addresses this very serious issue of IRS harassment of churches engaging in conservative political activity. This bill is badly needed to end the IRS practice of threatening certain politically disfavored faiths with loss of their tax-exempt status, while ignoring the very open and public political activities of other churches. While some well-known leftist preachers routinely advocate socialism from the pulpit, many conservative Christian and Jewish congregations cannot present their political beliefs without risking scrutiny from the tax collector.
government
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state. However, the First amendment simply prohibits the federal government from passing laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state," yet lawmakers and judges continually assert this mythical doctrine.
government
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The result is court rulings and laws that separate citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings, in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Our Founders never envisioned a rigidly secular public society, where people must nonsensically disregard their deeply held beliefs in all matters of government and politics. They certainly never imagined that the federal government would actively work to chill the political activities of some churches.
government
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The political left, however, seeks to impose the viewpoint that public life must be secular, and that government cannot reflect morality derived from faith. Many Democrats, not all, are threatened by strong religious institutions because they want an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.
government
IRS Threatens Political Speech
24 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 24 July 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom must not depend on the whims of IRS bureaucrats. Religious institutions cannot freely preach their beliefs if they must fear that the government will accuse them of "politics." We cannot allow churches to be silenced any more than we can allow political dissent in general to be silenced. Free societies always have strong, independent institutions that are not afraid to challenge and criticize the government.
government
The Threat of Rising Property Taxes
07 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Property taxes are only one piece of the puzzle. Overall, most Americans hand over at least 40% of every dollar they make to government at some level. The appetite for your tax dollars—whether at the federal, state, or local level—will continue to grow year after year unless we begin to rethink the proper role for government in our lives. If you think you’ve been squeezed for every last drop of taxes, demand that both your representatives in the statehouse and Washington do something to address spiraling property taxes.
government
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way.
government
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates.
government
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way.
government
Your Taxes Subsidize China
14 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
I believe that by engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse. The laws of economics dictate that a communist system cannot stand for long. But in the same way, I firmly believe there is a higher law which dictates that people exposed to the principles of liberty will not for long allow themselves to remain shackled to an oppressive government. Economic freedom, i.e. capitalism, now has a strong foothold in China. The Chinese people may soon demand political, religious, and personal freedom as well. But in the meantime let’s stop sending tax dollars to support a government we claim to despise.
government
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
government
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
government
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
government
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
21 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 21 August 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
government
A North American United Nations?
28 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 28 August 2006 verse 14 ... Cached
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
government
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
In recent weeks I've written about the threat of rising property taxes posed by state and local governments hungry for more and more of your money; and the threat of widespread eminent domain actions posed by a planned North American superhighway running straight through Texas. It's clear that many political and business interests are only too willing to drive people literally out of their homes to make way for the grand schemes of those in power.
government
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
This is why every American needs to understand that property rights are the foundation of a free society. Without property rights, all citizens live subject to the whims of government officials. When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.
government
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Now one year removed from the notorious Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer. The silver lining, however, is that many Americans have been stirred to action and are demanding new state laws to prohibit the Kelo scenario from repeating itself in their cities.
government
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
The Kelo case demonstrates that local government can be as tyrannical as centralized government. Decentralized power is always preferable, of course, since it's easier to fight city hall than Congress. But government power is ever and always dangerous, and must be zealously guarded against. Most people in New London, Connecticut, like most people in America, would rather not involve themselves in politics. The reality is that politics involves itself with us whether we like it or not. We can bury our heads in the sand and hope things don't get too bad, or we can fight back when government treats us as its servant rather than its master.
government
Elected Officials Threaten Property Rights
04 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights.
government
Amnesty and the Welfare State
18 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
But many Senators, Representatives, and administration officials remain committed to pursuing amnesty in some form. The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and most of the immigration reform proposals in both chambers of Congress certainly meet that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa and ultimately citizenship. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.
government
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
government
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
It’s time to rethink the whole system of HMOs and managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism rakes off profits and worsens the quality of care. But HMOs did not arise in the free market; they are creatures of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions have gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and drug companies, in an effort to move America toward “free” universal health care.
government
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
One big problem arises from the 1974 ERISA law, which grants tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals. This results in the illogical coupling between employment and health insurance. As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, costs have risen artificially out of the range of most individuals.
government
Diagnosing our Health Care Woes
25 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves.
government
Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
02 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 October 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.
government
Deficit Spending and Social Security
09 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Still, the problem seems vague and faraway for most. Today’s seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress doesn’t want to face the problem until it becomes an acute crisis. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant problem. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.
government
Deficit Spending and Social Security
09 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Social Security contributions are supposed to be set aside from general revenues and placed in a trust fund. The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Over the decades Congress found itself simply unable to sit on a big pile of money, so it began treating Social Security contributions as general revenues to fund the ever-growing federal government. Today your Social Security account is nothing more than a ledger filled with IOUs.
government
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us-- and more each year-- the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.
government
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The question to ask yourself is this: What would I do with the money withheld from my paycheck each month? The answer is simple: you would spend, save, or invest the money, all of which do more for the economy and society than sending it to Washington. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!
government
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Cutting spending would not be hard if Congress simply showed the political will to tackle the problem. I’m not talking about cutting the rate at which government spending grows, but cutting the actual amount of money spent by the federal government in a single year.
government
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
If federal spending grows at 5% rather than 7% one year, that’s hardly a great achievement on the part of Congress. The current federal budget of around $2.7 trillion could be cut to $2.5 trillion quite easily. The vast majority of Americans would not even notice. But we must begin chipping away at the federal budget if we hope to address the underlying problem of government debt.
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 1 ... Cached
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
government
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
23 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 October 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
government
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.
government
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
government
The NAFTA Superhighway
30 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
government
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.
government
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
government
Gun Control on the Back Burner
06 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 November 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.
government
Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State
13 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is an investigative arm of Congress charged with the thankless task of accounting for the money received and spent by the federal government. As you might imagine, people who spend all day examining the nitty-gritty realities of federal spending and deficits might not share the voters' enthusiasm for grand campaign promises.
government
Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State
13 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
I urge everyone interested to visit the GAO website at href="http://www.gao.gov/">www.gao.gov, where you can view a report entitled: "Our Nation's Fiscal Outlook: The Federal Government's Long-Term Budget Imbalance." This report should be required reading for every politician in Washington.
government
Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State
13 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
Are ever growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do these expenditures, and the resulting deficits, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should younger taxpayers be expected to provide retirement security and health care even for affluent retirees? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded by Congress each year constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain programs were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people must ask, even though Congress lacks the courage to do so.
government
Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State
13 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
If we hope to avoid a calamitous financial future for our nation, we must address the hardest question of all: What is the proper role for government in our society? The answer to this question will determine how prosperous and free we remain in the decades to come.
government
Milton Friedman 1912-2006
20 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense.
government
Milton Friedman 1912-2006
20 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
His death only underscores the sad lack of economics knowledge in Washington, however. Many of our elected officials at every level have no understanding of economics whatsoever, yet they wield tremendous power over our economy through taxes, regulations, and countless other costs associated with government. They spend your money with little or no thought given to the economic consequences of their actions. It is indeed a tribute to the American entrepreneurial spirit that we have enjoyed such prosperity over the decades; clearly it is in spite of government policies rather than because of them.
government
Milton Friedman 1912-2006
20 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.
government
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Military needs aside, some politicians simply love the thought of mandatory service to the federal government. The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm's way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state-- a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence.
government
Rethinking the Draft
27 November 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
To many politicians, the American government is America. This is why, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. Compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.
government
Monetary Inflation is the Problem
04 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
This decline in the value of the dollar is simple to explain. The dollar loses value as the direct result of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury increasing the money supply. Inflation, as the late Milton Friedman explained, is always a monetary phenomenon. The federal government consistently wants to spend more than it can tax and borrow, so Congress turns to the Fed for help in covering the difference. The result is more dollars, both real and electronic-- which means the value of every existing dollar goes down.
government
Monetary Inflation is the Problem
04 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The precipitous drop in the dollar shows how investors around the globe are very concerned about American deficits and debt. When government policies in a fiat system are the sole measure of a currency’s worth, the currency markets act as a reliable barometer of how those policies are viewed around the world. Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. When investors lack faith in the U.S. dollar, they really lack faith in the economic policies of the U.S. government.
government
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
11 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 11 December 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
government
The Original Foreign Policy
18 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 18 December 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
government
More of the Same in 2007
25 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 25 December 2006 verse 12 ... Cached
In Washington, the answer to every problem is always more of the same. If a war is not successful, escalate it-- or even start another one. This is our only policy in Iraq, where we don’t even know whom the enemy really is. Can one in ten Americans even distinguish between Sunni, Shia, and Kurds? Unless we rethink our senseless policy of endless occupation, regime change, and nation building in the Middle East, we must expect more of the same: More troops injured or killed, more spending, more debt, more taxes, more militarism, and especially more government.
government
The World's Reserve Currency
01 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
government
The World's Reserve Currency
01 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate-- both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.
government
Totalization is a Bad Idea
08 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The agreement creates a so-called “totalization” plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.
government
Totalization is a Bad Idea
08 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work.
government
Totalization is a Bad Idea
08 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 08 January 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it’s unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.
government
Inflation and War Finance
29 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
government
Inflation and War Finance
29 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That’s why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
government
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.
government
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.
government
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate--not political victories.
government
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.
government
Political Power and the Rule of Law
05 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
government
Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
12 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn’t have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.
government
Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
12 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down-- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now-- by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.
government
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition-- is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show “60 Minutes” last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government’s ability to meet its future obligations.
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
If you didn’t see the show, Mr. Walker’s theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won’t be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can’t be reformed- it’s too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars- a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.
government
The Coming Entitlement Meltdown
05 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 05 March 2007 verse 11 ... Cached
The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.
government
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.
government
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
government
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom.
government
The 2008 Federal Budget
02 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
government
The 2008 Federal Budget
02 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
government
The 2008 Federal Budget
02 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
government
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 1 ... Cached
Government and Racism
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
government
Government and Racism
16 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 April 2007 verse 11 ... Cached
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
government
Security and Liberty
23 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
government
Security and Liberty
23 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
government
Security and Liberty
23 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
government
Security and Liberty
23 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.
government
Security and Liberty
23 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.
government
Getting Iraq War Funding Wrong Again
30 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Though many will criticize the president for mis-steps in Iraq and at home, it is with the willing participation of Congress, through measures like this war funding bill, that our policy continues to veer off course. Additionally, it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
government
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?
government
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.
government
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
07 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 May 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
government
Security Washington-Style
14 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.
government
Security Washington-Style
14 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.
government
Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq
21 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization.
government
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
What is seldom discussed in the immigration debate, unfortunately, is the incentives the US government provides for people to enter the United States illegally. As we know well, when the government subsidizes something we get more of it. The government provides a myriad of federal welfare benefits to those who come to the US illegally, including food stamps and free medical care. Is this a way to discourage people from coming to the US illegally?
government
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona , New Mexico , and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan ! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.
government
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
18 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
government
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
18 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
government
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
18 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
government
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
18 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
government
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.
government
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
government
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
25 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 June 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.
government
Recapturing the Spirit of Independence
02 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
If we truly honor the men who brought about Independence Day, we would do well to spend at least as much time reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, and the principles upon which it is based, as we spend at the cookouts, parades, and fireworks displays. With the trend toward globalism that has been with us for the past century, we should be specifically thoughtful about how our celebration of independence can be made consistent with the policies that have been advocated by the American government -- as well as many of the nation’s elite— or what we used to call the Eastern Establishment.
government
Recapturing the Spirit of Independence
02 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 July 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.
government
Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance
09 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
I have long been skeptical of the line item veto on spending bills for the same reason I oppose these signing statements. The legislature should not yield its authority to the executive. Our constitutional republic demands that all branches of government understand and respect our system and jealously guard their own prerogatives.
government
Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance
09 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 July 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and directly about the idea of elected representatives delegating their responsibility to other branches of government, saying in no uncertain terms that since such representatives had received their authority by delegation from the people-- expressly for the use as representative-- the legislature had to choose to either use the authority granted or return it to the people. In other words, there is to be no delegation of authority from the representatives to the executive branch of government.
government
Globalism
16 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.
government
Globalism
16 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.
government
Exposing the True Isolationists
23 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.
government
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
government
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
As Washington moves towards its summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
government
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
government
As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues
06 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
During this period, the Blue Dogs continued to make the rhetorical point of government financial misdeeds. Now that Democrats control the House, the RSC is highlighting the increases in spending and debt that will occur based on bills passed this year by the new majority.
government
As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues
06 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Current arguments over spending really have no connection to the idea of the overall reduction in the size and scope of government. The Democrats who argue that tax cuts are a form of spending are just as misleading as the Republicans who say they can make a serious dent by changing congressionally directed spending into administration directed spending.
government
As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues
06 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
The federal government has a spending problem. Each year our current accounts balance gets worse and worse, and the amount of foreign held government debt has skyrocketed. Both Republicans and Democrats; conservatives, liberals and moderates, indeed nearly every single-member of the Washington political establishment, is addicted to one form of federal spending or another.
government
High Risk Spending
13 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week this column addressed the train wreck that federal spending has become. To score political points politicians will make loud noise about fairly small matters such as earmarks, even while refusing to address the real problem. Namely, that our federal government is too big and does too much. Politicians prefer to pass a bill or create a program every time somebody points to a new social problem, this way they can tell their constituents how much they are doing to help. Instead of rationally explaining the proper role of government, politicians have attempted to play the role of friend, preacher, parent, social worker, etcetera-- in essence, whatever any organized special interest can demand.
government
High Risk Spending
13 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Waste, fraud and abuse are often easy targets. Everybody knows a story of the government doing something absolutely ridiculous and wasteful. Plus, recent headlines have been packed with stories of corruption in Washington.
government
High Risk Spending
13 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
One thing that has not drawn enough attention is the link between the size of government and the mismanagement that leads to wasted money. If the government was restrained within its proper constitutional functions, it would be far better managed and much more readily would proper oversight occur.
government
High Risk Spending
13 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
There are currently 27 programs and operations on this list, up from 26 last year. But here are the more surprising facts, the list was originated with 14 programs in 1990. Of those original 14 programs, from 17 years ago, only 8 have been removed. How can it be that 6 programs remain on such a list nearly two decades later? While government is supposed to move slowly, this is ridiculous.
government
High Risk Spending
13 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 13 August 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
In the time that the GAO list has existed, there have been 33 additions and a mere 18 removals, including two this year. Only when the people demand the federal government stop trying to meet any and all demands, and instead return to a constitutionally limited republic, will the list of programs subject to waste, fraud and abuse be dramatically reduced. While government will never be perfect, a limited government is far more able to not only identify problems, but to actually correct them.
government
High Risk Credit
20 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The real answers are, and always have been, found in the principles of the free market. Let the market set the interest rates. If we had been functioning under a true and transparent free market system, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Government, like the American household, needs to live within its means to get back on stable fiscal ground.
government
High Risk Credit
20 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
We’ve been headed in the wrong direction since 1971. This week marks the 36th anniversary of Nixon’s decision to close the gold window, which convinced me to seek public office to call attention to the runaway money train that would come in the aftermath of that decision. The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation to max out lines of credit, is too strong to for government to resist. While Nixon brokered exclusivity deals with OPEC to prop up demand for the tidal wave of green pieces of paper the Fed pumped into the markets, the world is tiring of marching to the beat of our drum in order to secure their energy needs. The house of cards Nixon built is now on the verge of collapsing on our heads, and on our children’s heads.
government
Aging Infrastructure
27 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 27 August 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.
government
Aging Infrastructure
27 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 27 August 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Infrastructure, in a capitalist model, is an asset worthy of maintaining to ensure continuity of revenue. In a government controlled model infrastructure is nothing but a cumbersome liability. This should be taken into consideration when developing plans to keep our current infrastructure safe. Privatization should be used to encourage maintenance and safety, and where private companies truly invest and bear the upfront costs in return for ability to collect tolls or usage fees in some form. But public/private partnerships that look more like corporate welfare must be avoided.
government
Aging Infrastructure
27 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 27 August 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Even the most ardent liberal and passionate conservative can agree that when they pay gasoline taxes, the least they expect is a road and bridge system that won't crumble beneath their feet. Before any subsidies or welfare payments are paid out, before social security is handed out to illegal immigrants, or health care is given to everyone, before bridges to nowhere are built at home, or entire countries bombed and rebuilt abroad, before any other myriad of exotic government projects are even considered, infrastructure should be attended to and taken seriously.
government
Surrender Should Not be an Option
02 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
government
Surrender Should Not be an Option
02 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.
government
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.
government
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.
government
The Sunlight Rule
16 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Indeed some of the most malignant growth of our government has been nurtured under a cover of darkness.
government
The Sunlight Rule
16 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The bill for the Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was also rushed to the floor with little time to examine the lengthy text of the legislation. If approved by the Senate this measure would increase taxes by an additional $53.8 billion over 5 years and further extend the federal government’s reach into the healthcare of American citizens. Similar processes were followed for raising the minimum wage, providing funding for stem cell research and implementing the 9-11 conference.
government
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card. We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending. Yet the market for US Treasury Bonds is rapidly shrinking as yield declines. Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq , not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost.
government
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The reality is that this type of manipulation of the markets masks where resources, or money, ultimately comes from. It comes from the taxpayer. The government doesn’t create Gross Domestic Product, they just limit and control how it is done. They then absorb much of the value produced in the economy through taxation and inflation, so they can squander our nation’s wealth with runaway spending.
government
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
The Fed tries to keep up with government’s spending habits, but is sending inaccurate signals to mask bad monetary policy. Ultimately, we’ll get back on track financially only when government spending is held in check and the free market controls monetary policy, not the other way around.
government
Keeping Promises to Seniors
07 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
With our country's finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending. The predictable answer to the government's voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in Iraq . Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon. We must keep these promises.
government
Keeping Promises to Seniors
07 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
An analysis of the Social Security "Trust Fund" shows we are not doing a credible job of keeping these promises. Official reports show the trust fund having assets of $2.1 trillion. In reality, those dollars are just IOUs the government is writing to itself when it borrows from the fund to spend on unrelated programs. There are no real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. This is similar to taking money out of your savings account, spending it, then replacing it with an IOU to yourself, and calling that IOU an asset.
government
Keeping Promises to Seniors
07 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Yet this is done every year by the federal government. The truth is that while politicians in Washington differ about what programs to spend Social Security money on, they are united in wanting to spend it on something other than benefits for seniors.
government
Keeping Promises to Seniors
07 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
This approach can continue only until Social Security stops running “surpluses” the government can raid. Trustees of Social Security estimate this will happen in 2017. At that time, the amount owed to the Trust Fund will be between $4 trillion and $5.2 trillion, depending on the economy.
government
Keeping Promises to Seniors
07 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
When that day of reckoning comes, there will no longer be “excess” payroll tax receipts available to prop up government spending, and the risk of financial crisis will be significant. Instead of forward thinking solutions, politicians are discussing alarming proposals, such as an agreement with Mexico to let their citizens collect social security money intended for our seniors. This would break the bank even sooner. But, current Members of Congress will no longer be in office to face the wrath of seniors and their families when the trust fund goes bankrupt. Instead, they will be retired and enjoying their own plush Congressional pensions.
government
Taxing Ourselves to Death
14 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The death tax punishes one of the greatest and ultimate satisfactions of achieving the American dream – the knowledge that your life’s work is an investment in your family’s future. Instead of being able to focus on hard work, however, death tax provisions keep countless estate planners working countless hours helping Americans negotiate through complicated tax laws just to keep the fruits of their life’s work out of the squandering hands of government.
government
Taxing Ourselves to Death
14 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Other anti-property rights provisions in the Tax Collection Responsibility Act make desperate last attempts to extract the most amount of revenue possible from expatriots on their way out the door. A telling signal that a country is taxing itself to death is capital flight and expatriation. When successful Americans no longer feel their property is secure from government thieves, and they have too much to lose by staying, they vote with their feet and go elsewhere. This country is poorer for the loss of that citizen’s investment here, but it is their right to keep and enjoy what they have built up. How dare Congress or the IRS try to deny them that? And what message does that send to the next generation of young entrepreneurs?
government
Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, Both.
21 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Some have questioned these votes, arguing that they are meaningless statements of opinion. However, I have always been more skeptical, and careful, about voting for these measures. Last week’s reaction by Turkey , a long term ally and NATO member, shows that Congress should be a lot more restrained in sticking our government’s nose into the affairs of other nations.
government
Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, Both.
21 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 21 October 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Even if other countries do not take the rather extreme step of recalling their ambassador, this kind of meddling by Congressional resolution almost always serves to offend governments and political leaders in other counties.
government
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!
government
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.
government
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.
government
Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars
28 October 2007 Texas Straight Talk 28 October 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.
government
Tax Reform Promises Treats, Delivers Tricks
04 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The founding fathers never saw taxation as a method to direct social behavior or enforce equality. Equality to them was equality under the law, not equality of outcome, or income. It was not the founding fathers' job to manage the economy, or make American businesses competitive. That was up to the free market and American businesses. The founders sought to provide only protection of property and civil liberties such that job creation could happen naturally and peacefully in a stable, prosperous environment. They never sought to take from the rich to give to the poor, or rob Peter to pay Paul. But today, the top 5% of earners in this country pay over half of all income taxes collected, but only bring in a third of the income. One third of Americans pay nothing or receive subsidies from government.
government
Tax Reform Promises Treats, Delivers Tricks
04 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Tax policy should not be based on the premise that government owns you and allows you to keep some arbitrary amount of your labor. Thus, the AMT should be repealed. The estate tax should be repealed. Capital gains taxes should be repealed. The income tax should be repealed. We don’t need to overhaul or adjust tax policy, we need to scrap the whole thing and start over.
government
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
government
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
18 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.
government
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
18 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 9 ... Cached
Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.
government
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
18 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 November 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.
government
Pain at the Pump
25 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
This past week Americans traveled approximately 2 billion miles to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and loved ones. While you cannot put a price on time with family, Americans sure felt the pain of higher fuel prices at the gas pump. It is time to take an honest look at the government's direct and indirect role in inflating those prices.
government
Pain at the Pump
25 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Taxation is the most direct way government increases Americans' cost at the pump. The national average price of gas now is well over $3.00 per gallon now, $4 in some areas. Federal taxes take 18.4 cents, while state and local taxes average another 28.5 cents per gallon. That's an average of 47 cents per gallon Americans are paying just for government, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Less directly, our loose monetary policy gives taxpayers double jeopardy at the pump, simultaneously increasing prices and undermining purchasing power. Wages always lag behind price increases, making average Americans feel as though they can never quite keep up, never quite get out of debt. Not to mention the ripple effect of higher diesel costs on the trucking industry. When trucking and shipping is more expensive, everything is more expensive.
government
Pain at the Pump
25 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
The indirect costs government imposes on gas prices are much more serious. A major bottleneck that causes gas prices to surge is our very meagre and vulnerable refinery capacity due mostly to regulatory red tape. Environmental regulations and litigation have kept our existing refinery capacity barely adequate. In fact, no new refineries have been built since the 70's and these are operating at capacity, which makes our gasoline market especially vulnerable as demonstrated by skyrocketing gas prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when many coastal oil facilities were brought to a halt. In addition, many foreign refineries don't have the ability to produce the specialized blends of gasoline mandated by our government, and therefore 90% of our gasoline is refined in the United States under extreme regulatory burden. When our domestic refineries are damaged or jeopardized, there are few options other than soaring prices or long lines.
government
Pain at the Pump
25 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Much of government intervention in the oil industry in the past has been counter-productive and has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for every mile Americans can still afford to travel to be with family. I am working hard in Congress to reverse the costly trend of government interference and return markets, including oil markets, to true economic freedom.
government
On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
02 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.
government
On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
02 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.
government
On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
02 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.
government
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility
16 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2007 verse 1 ... Cached
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility in Government
government
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility
16 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
As the year draws to a close, the battle over spending in Washington is heating up. The Democrats want to expand government healthcare, while the President has vetoed the second attempt to expand SCHIP.
government
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility
16 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
We are at a crucial point in history right now. We must think very carefully about our next moves. There is coming a time, if we continue on this path, when all that our tax dollars and government revenues will be able to do is pay interest on the mountain of debt we have compiled in the past few decades. That will mean no government programs or services of any kind will be funded, yet future generations of Americans will still struggle under a crushing tax burden with nothing to show for it. That is why fiscal restraint and common sense with the budget are so vitally important in government.
government
The Importance of Fiscal Responsibility
16 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The difference now is that our printing presses at the Federal Reserve are getting worn out as we have expanded our money supply to the breaking point with yet another rate cut this week. As the dollar falls, it is losing its reserve currency status as many countries are shifting to the Euro or the Chinese yuan or other currencies. The more that trend continues, the weaker we become on the world stage. Those foreign governments and entities that enabled us to spend so much for so long are wearing thin and cutting us off.
government
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Last week I highlighted the irony of sending nearly $1 billion overseas in military earmarks as we close down bases here at home to save money. Our government's flawed foreign policy troubles me this week especially.
government
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
This is the problem with our government involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends' enemies become our enemies. How many times have we armed BOTH sides of a conflict because of this? There is little for us to gain from this policy, and simultaneously a lot of trouble we get ourselves into. It is not a rational or intelligent way to interact with the world.
government
On Foreign Entanglements: The Ties that Strangle
30 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The administration has behaved as if there are only two choices in foreign policy - sending money or sending bombs. Our founding fathers knew a better way - to talk with our neighbors, do honest business with them, cultivate friendship, allow travel and open communication. We should neither initiate violence, nor take sides in conflicts that are none of our business. The American taxpayers are working hard enough to support their families here at home. If an American wants to send money overseas for a conflict or cause, let them, but do not slap Americans in the face by forcefully sending their children's college money abroad to subsidize despotic foreign governments. Our children should be going off to college, not going off to more senseless foreign wars.
government
No Sunlight on the Omnibus
06 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 06 January 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Every December Congress fights and argues over spending and never seems to be able to pass the necessary appropriations until the very last minute. There is panic and threats of government shut downs and reduction in essential services. And they always threaten the essential services, as if there is no waste they could possibly eliminate instead. This past December, right on cue the administration warned about dire civilian defense department layoffs if the money didn't come soon.
government
No Sunlight on the Omnibus
06 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 06 January 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
However, we are led to believe that if the Omnibus bill failed, horrible things would have happened. But the situation is a setup that ensures our government spending balloons every year just as the elites and special interests dictate. The vast majority of Members of Congress don't actually know what the money is being spent on until after passage and by then it is too late.
government
Legislative Forecast for 2008
13 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
Moreover, the government will require more money than ever this year, and as funding options run out, taxes will go up. Expect stealth tax increases on consumer goods, perhaps airline tickets or cigarettes, and increased government fees here and there. Ironically total revenues will probably fall due to a weakened economy. The new programs started to “help” the country will require extra money wherever the government can squeeze it out of you, unfortunately it will be at exactly the moment you can least afford it. Since the Democrats enacted “pay-as-you-go” rules for new legislation, cutting taxes to give relief during recession will be bureaucratically next to impossible. In spite of that, I will continue the uphill battle for tax relief.
government
Economic Stimulus Concerns
27 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
There are some positive aspects of the highly lauded economic stimulus package that has been negotiated. I am in favor of taxpayers getting some of their money back, however temporary tax cuts and one-time rebates will not “fix” the economy. What we desperately need right now is real deep significant tax cuts that are enabled by big spending cuts and reduction of government waste that is so rampant. Unfortunately, too many in Washington still believe we can spend our way into prosperity, which does not work and never has.
government
Paving Paradise
03 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
The principle of private property is the cornerstone to a free and prosperous society. In situations where a colossal government land grab is a distinct possibility, investment or improvement becomes more risky with an uncertain future and tends not to happen. How do you sell land that may or may not be taken by the government at some point in the not too distant future? Who would buy it? How do you cultivate or build on, or even near, land that may or may not be paved over and turned into a massive, noisy thoroughfare in a few years?
government
Paving Paradise
03 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 03 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
From Washington I have voiced my staunch disapproval of taking these hard-working taxpayers’ land for a private toll road, by introducing legislation (HR 5191) that simply states, “No Federal funds appropriated or made available before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act may be used by a unit of Federal, State, or local government to carry out the highway project known as the 'Trans-Texas Corridor'.” I am working hard in Congress to make sure that no Federal funding is used to undermine property rights in this way.
government
Second Amendment Battle in DC
10 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 10 February 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society. Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people's access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law. Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to. Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
government
If We Subsidize Them...
17 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 17 February 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
government
If We Subsidize Them...
17 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 17 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
government
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
One major concern I discussed a few weeks ago regarding the Trans Texas Corridor is where the land will come from. Another concern is where the money will come from. Official government websites for the TTC assure that public-private partnerships will shield the taxpayer from bearing too much of the cost burden, but a careful reading shows the door is definitely open to public funding sources, while at the same time there is no doubt of the intention to charge tolls on the road.
government
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
And to add insult to injury – private lands will be taken for this road which will be, for all intents and purposes, a private business. The government should not use the power of eminent domain to seize and redistribute land for the benefit of a private company. This is wrong and unconstitutional. Cintra Zachry should negotiate with each individual land owner and go through the normal private land acquisition process to start its new business. If mutual agreements can be reached, fine. If not, government force is not appropriate. Our government should protect property rights, not facilitate theft.
government
Taxes or Tolls on the TTC
24 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
Toll roads should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or even bond funding that pledge future tax dollars. Taxpayers should not have to pay additional fees for something they have already paid for. Eminent domain should absolutely not be used for private businesses. This public-private partnership has all the makings of the worst of both worlds. I am doing my part at the Federal level in Congress to limit the damage to the taxpayer. I introduced a bill in that prohibits the use of federal funding for any part of the TTC and I will continue to push for this bill, and other bills protecting property rights, taxpayers rights and our national sovereignty. The government should not fund and enforce private efforts like this and thumb their nose at land owners and taxpayers.
government
Hope for the Economy
02 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
It is becoming harder and harder for Washington and the mainstream media to ignore the ripple effect the collapse of the housing bubble is having on the economy. Inflation is up, cost of food is up, oil and gold are up, foreclosures are up, unemployment is up, government spending is at record highs, its seems that the only thing down is the value of the dollar. The middle and lower classes are getting squeezed as prices jump and wages stay flat.
government
Hope for the Economy
02 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
What the government needs to stop doing is taxing Americans literally out of house and home in the wake of the housing debacle. We should not take money from taxpayers to bail out bad businesses. At the same time, we need to make sure that America can get back to work by easing taxes and regulations on good businesses and allow them to function and prosper. Also there a lot of tax cuts and tax reforms we could be making to ease the burden on the American people.
government
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
09 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.
government
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
09 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption. Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds. If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run. For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change. Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.
government
Can Foreign Aid Save Africa?
09 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems. It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress. It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.
government
Making a Recession Great
16 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. Over half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.
government
On Five Years in Iraq
23 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 2008 verse 8 ... Cached
Iraq war supporters claim that the "surge" of additional US troops into Iraq has been a resounding success. I am not so confident. Under the "surge" policy the United States military has trained and equipped with deadly weapons those Iraqi militia members against whom they were fighting just months ago. I fear by arming and equipping opposing militias we are just setting the stage for a more tragic and dangerous explosion of violence, possibly aimed at US troops in Iraq . There is no indication that the Iraqi government has made any political progress whatsoever.
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 1 ... Cached
On Money, Inflation and Government
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
These past few weeks have provided an unfortunate opportunity to discuss inflation. The dollar index has reached new all-time lows. The total money supply, M3, as calculated by private sources, is growing at a disturbing 17% rate. The Fed is pumping dollars into the economy at an alarming rate. Just recently the Fed announced new loan auctions totaling $100 billion. That is new money created from thin air. If these money auctions, combined with the bailout of Bear Stearns, continue to be the trend, we are in for some economic stormy weather. The explanation lies in understanding the basics of money, and why it is dangerous to give government and big banks control over it.
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
You see, the Fed creates new money and uses it to purchase securities from banks. Flush with funds, these banks seek to put this money to use. During the Fed's expansionary period, much of this money went to home loans. Through a combination of federal government inducements to lend to risky borrowers, and the Fed's supply of easy money, the housing bubble took shape. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to purchase and securitize mortgages, while investors, buoyed by implicit government backing, rushed to provide funding. Money that could have been invested in more productive, less risky sectors of the economy was thereby malinvested in subprime mortgage loans.
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve, a quasi-government entity, should not be creating money or determining interest rates, as this causes malinvestment and excessive debt to accumulate. Centrally planned, government manipulated economies always fail eventually. The collapse of communism and the failure of socialism should have made this apparent. Even the most educated, well-intentioned central planners cannot plan the market better than the market itself. Those that understand economics best, understand this reality.
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
In free markets, both success and failure are options. If government interventions prevent businesses, like Bear Stearns, from failing, then it is not truly a free market. As painful as it might be for Wall Street, banks, even big ones, must be allowed to fail.
government
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 8 ... Cached
The end game for this policy of monetary inflation is that the money in your bank account loses purchasing power. So, by keeping failing banks afloat, the Fed punishes those who have lived frugally and saved. The power to create money is a power that should never be granted to government. As we can plainly see today, the Fed has abused this power, and taxpayers are paying the price.
government
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
government
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.
government
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.
government
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.
government
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 8 ... Cached
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.
government
Bailing Out Banks
13 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
The PDCF in particular is a departure from the established pattern of Fed intervention because it targets the primary dealers, the largest investment banks who purchase government securities directly from the New York Fed. These banks have never before been allowed to borrow from the Fed, but thanks to the Fed Board of Governors, these investment banks can now receive loans from the Fed in exchange for securities which will in all likelihood soon lose much of their value.
government
The Double Trouble of Taxation
20 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns. Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money. Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out. To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.
government
The Double Trouble of Taxation
20 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place. The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations. These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars. There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by. Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration. This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.
government
The Double Trouble of Taxation
20 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it. There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours. In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax. Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big. $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.
government
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain. Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer. More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain. But over-reaching government gets in the way.
government
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen. Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it. K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal. However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
government
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.
government
Politicizing Pain
27 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues. This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.
government
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 1 ... Cached
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
government
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline. For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.
government
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold.
government
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits. It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.
government
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.
government
Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
11 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 2008 verse 1 ... Cached
Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
government
Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
11 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place. The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers. People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government. But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly. Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces. This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.
government
Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
11 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions. One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure. HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes. Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills. It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.
government
Big Government Responsible for Housing Bubble
11 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some. We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them. It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future. Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows - by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer. The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.
government
The Economy: Another Casualty of War
18 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar "emergency" spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs. The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package. Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy. At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.
government
The Economy: Another Casualty of War
18 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war. The "bipartisan" compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace. The taxpayer loses and government grows.
government
The Economy: Another Casualty of War
18 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control. Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy. We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed. Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire. The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.
government
The Economy: Another Casualty of War
18 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week. However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction. Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.
government
Salute to Veterans
25 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
Most of my efforts on Capitol Hill are focused on reducing the federal government’s size and scope, but I make an exception for a very important group of people. Our nation’s men and women in uniform commit a selfless act of patriotism when they take up arms in defense of our country. As a veteran myself, I salute all those currently serving, or who have served in our armed forces. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude for their sacrifices, their courage, their time away from friends and family, and the dangers they undertake. This Memorial Day we honor our soldiers and vets, we remember those who never came home, or who have since passed on. Above all, we acknowledge our respect for all who have served in the military.
government
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 1 ... Cached
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
government
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.
government
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.
government
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
Third world countries also lose with these continued government manipulations. Agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction, which leads to foreign food aid as a form of dumping. By “dumping” government-created agricultural surpluses, agrarian economies are artificially kept in a constant state of economic depression. The would-be third world farmer cannot compete with “free” grain, thus he and his countrymen remain perpetual beggars rather than competitive producers. Also, by keeping food prices high, we keep more of our own citizens dependent on government food stamps, instead of paying fair market prices for food.
government
Sowing More Big Government with the Farm Bill
01 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers, should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work. With commodity and food prices on the rise, Congress had an opportunity to scale down government controls and taxpayer funding of agriculture. Instead, despite the warning sent by an 18% approval rating, Congress stubbornly opted for more of the same.
government
Rising Energy Prices and the Falling Dollar
09 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
If the Fed continues with its bubble blowing policies of the past, the new commodities bubble will continue to grow, gas prices will continue to go up, as the value of your dollars go down. We will see an overinvestment in these commodities as solutions are desperately sought for a supply shortage, which is only part of the problem. Make no mistake, though, this is not the free market at work. Government manipulations have added levels of complication and unintended consequences to the marketplace.
government
Rising Energy Prices and the Falling Dollar
09 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2008 verse 6 ... Cached
Governments need to get out of the way and let the people get back to work so that we can get our economy back on stable footing. Our destructive regulatory environment, confiscatory tax policies, and managed, rather than free trade have chased many businesses overseas. The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work. The important thing now is to get the diagnosis absolutely correct so we can administer the appropriate treatment and move on to a healthier economic future. To do this it is absolutely necessary to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money.
government
Iraq or the Economy?
16 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
What is the importance of the war in Iraq relative to other current issues? This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy. The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations. War is an all-encompassing governmental activity. The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ’s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government.
government
A Major Victory for Texas
23 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
This is a major victory for the people of Texas , and a reminder of what we can accomplish with civic involvement. The informed and active citizen truly is a force to be reckoned with, as we have seen with the defeat of this proposal. We must keep fighting the good fight, and remain ever diligent against the encroachments of big government. We must do this if we wish to maintain our traditional standard of living in this country. As tempting as it may be to simply live our lives with no regard to government, apathy will inevitably be punished by ever more government intrusion. That is what this fight was all about. We can win if we stick together.
government
A Major Victory for Texas
23 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The bittersweet aspect of this victory is that we had to fight at all. We took time away from family and friends, doing other things, to attend these meetings, inform others, write letters, post signs and submit our complaints, and we should not have had to. Government should let us be, if we are peaceful citizens, harming no one. In a perfect world, government could be trusted to act in the best interests of the people without overwhelming pressure of this kind. This is not a perfect world. Constant pressure is needed to keep government in check, and we succeeded this time. But this will not be the last time citizen efforts and involvement will be required. We still face many unreasonable encroachments of big government today, from confiscatory, economy-strangling taxation to creeping disregard of the right of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights, to thousands of nuisance bureaucratic regulations interfering with our every day lives. We have drifted far from what the founding fathers envisioned for this nation. Last week was just one victory towards getting back on the right path. We must continue to hold politicians’ feet to the Constitutional fire. If I had to guess, they will probably try to implement the NAFTA Superhighway again sometime in the future.
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.