U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Private charities |
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
Head Start Program
14 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 99:4
Mr. Speaker, if programs such as Head Start where controlled by private charities, their staffers would not have to worry about diverting valuable resources away from their mission to fulfill the whims of Congress.
Private charities
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 71:9
* Instead of furthering federal involvement in the family, Congress should stop pumping the narcotic of welfare into America’s communities by defunding federal bureaucracies and returning responsibility for providing assistance to those institutions best able to provide help without fostering an ethic of irresponsibility and dependancy: private charities and churches.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:12
Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them “marketable” skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder.
Private charities
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura points out in the attached article, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens.
Private charities
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 22:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the states at a time when many are facing a fiscal crisis.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
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.
Private charities
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Private assistance organizations, on the other hand, are more subject to market forces and thus much more effective. When Americans feel motivated to part with their hard-earned money to help someone overseas, they want to make sure it goes only to the most effective charities. Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself.
Private charities
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.
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.