U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | tariff |
tariff
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:80
People will immediately say that is isolationism. Even if you are not for the IMF bailout, this argument really bewilders me. If you are not for the $18 billion bailout of the IMF, you are an isolationist. You can be for free trade and get rid of all the tariffs and do everything else, but if you are not willing to give your competitors more money and bail them out and bail out the banks, you are an isolationist. You are not for free trade. It is complete nonsense. There is nothing wrong with isolating our military forces.
tariff
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:102
There is nothing wrong with a foreign policy that is consistent based on a moral principle and on our Constitution. That means that the responsibility of the U.S. Congress is to provide for a strong national defense. There is nothing wrong with being friends with everybody who is willing to be friends with us. There is nothing wrong with trading with as many people that will trade with us, and there is nothing wrong with working for as low tariffs as possible.
tariff
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.
tariff
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:7
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is 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 it 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.
tariff
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:4
The Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880’s—protectionism. the chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Senator Sherman himself.
tariff
Drug Asset Forfeiture
24 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 67:5
SECTION 1. FORFEITURE CONDITION. No property may be forfeited under any civil asset forfeiture law unless the property’s owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture. The term “civil forfeiture law” refers to any provision of Federal law (other than the Tariff Act of 1930 or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
tariff
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:5
China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S. citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with trade.
tariff
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 77:9
[Genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is 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 it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
tariff
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:2
Mr. Speaker, the reason a country engages in free trade is not altruism — we do not encourage trade and low tariffs for the benefit of a trading partner. Even if the reciprocal country does not lower its tariffs we can still benefit.
tariff
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply” — a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.
tariff
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:11
We need to better explain that the Founding Fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the war for independence understood the difference.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:15
Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
tariff
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:8
The second argument for free trade is an economic argument. There is a benefit to free trade. Free trade means that you will not have high tariffs and barriers so you cannot buy products and you cannot exert this freedom of choice by buying outside. If you have a restricted majority and you can evenly buy from within, it means you are protecting industries that may not be doing a very good job, and there is not enough competition.
tariff
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:10
There is a tremendous economic benefit to the competition by being able to buy overseas. The other economic argument is that in order to keep a product out, you put on a tariff, a protective tariff. A tariff is a tax. We should not confuse that, we should not think tariff is something softer than a tax in doing something good. A tariff is a tax on the consumer. So those American citizens who want to buy products at lower prices are forced to be taxed.
tariff
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 39:7
That is a dream. Not only is the dollar due for a downturn, the Chinese currency is, as well. When these adjustments occur and recession sets in, with rising prices in consumer and producer goods, there will be those who will argue that it happened because of, or the lack thereof, of low tariffs and free trade with China.
tariff
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:2
* For the past several years I have favored normal trade relations with the People’s Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, I believe it is useful to begin with some detail as to what ‘normal trade relations’ status is and what it is not. Previous ‘normal trade relations’ votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods will be no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar products — period. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars sent to China. It did not signify more international family planning dollars sent overseas. NTR status does not mean automatic access to the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any member of other ‘foreign aid’ vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries. Rather, NTR status was the lowering of a United States citizen’s taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered into by citizens who happen to reside in different countries.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.’
tariff
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very successful. That is not what we are talking about here today.
tariff
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:4
The truth is, there was an offset for every tax that was lower. Even with NAFTA, one gentleman told me that he immediately benefitted from NAFTA, because the tariff barriers went down. But do you know what happened, there was a reclassification of his product, and his tax went back on because he was a little guy, but the big guys got the benefits.
tariff
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:21
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
tariff
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.
tariff
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:3
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
tariff
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:6
* Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.
tariff
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:10
* The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.
tariff
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:13
* H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of
tariff
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.
tariff
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:21
* The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business.
tariff
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:23
* Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.
tariff
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:6
Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.
tariff
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”
tariff
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:12
H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months, the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:21
Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.
tariff
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:22
The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.
tariff
Free Trade
April 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 24:4
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade agreement’; NAFTA is 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 it 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 in necessary.
tariff
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:20
A policy of nonintervention, friendship and neutrality with all nations, engagement in true free trade (unsubsidized trade with low tariffs) is the best policy if we truly seek peace around the world. That used to be the American way.
tariff
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:4
Mr. Chairman, last week we had a vote on trade with China. I supported that vote. I believe in free trade and low tariffs. I believe in the right of people to spend their money where they please, and I believe it is best for countries to be trading with each other. But the very same people today arguing for these corporate subsidies claim they are for free trade. If my colleagues are for free trade, they should not be for corporate subsidies. They are not one and the same. They are different.
tariff
Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 61:5
Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies.
tariff
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:34
Pseudo-free trade, managed poorly and driven by fiat money, is no substitute for true free trade in a world with a stable commodity currency, such as gold. Managed trade and fiat money, historically, have led to trade wars, which the international planners pretend to abhor. Yet the trade war is already gearing up. The WTO, purported to exist to lower tariffs, is actually the agency that grants permission for tariffs to be applied when complaints of dumping are levied. We are in the midst of banana, textile, steel, lumber, and tax wars, all managed by the WTO. When cheap imports hit our markets, it’s a good deal for consumers, but our manufacturers are the first to demand permission to place protective tariffs on imports. If this is already occurring in an economy that has been doing quite well, one can imagine how strong the protectionists’ sentiments will be in a worldwide slowdown.
tariff
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:12
The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:2
We’ve all heard about how these tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, Economics in one Lesson . Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic economics for the sake of political expediency. Now I grant you that this is hardly anything new in this town, but it’s important that we see these tariffs as the political favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.
tariff
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:3
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat. Sure, some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own?
tariff
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:4
If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.
tariff
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!
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:3
One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade.
tariff
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 91:4
I also believe in freedom of choice. People have the right to make their own choices. We do not need to promote the nanny state. People are wise enough and cautious enough to make their own choices. Today we had two votes on free trade legislation. They were promoting international trade agreements, but done in the name of free trade. Why do we have free trade legislation, so-called? To lower tariffs, to lower prices to the consumer. But those very same people who worked so hard on free trade legislation are saying now we cannot allow the American people the option of buying drugs from other countries and saving money.
tariff
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.
tariff
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:58
The long-term philosophic problem with this is that the central bank and the fiat monetary system are not blamed; instead free market capitalism is. This is what happened in the 1930s. The Keynesians, who grew to dominate economic thinking at the time, erroneously blamed the gold standard, balanced budgets, and capitalism instead of tax increases, tariffs, and Fed policy. This country cannot afford another attack on economic liberty similar to what followed the 1929 crash that ushered in the economic interventionism and inflationism which we have been saddled with ever since. These policies have brought us to the brink of another colossal economic downturn and we need to be prepared.
tariff
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:63
Paper money encourages speculation, excessive debt, and misdirected investments. The market, however, always moves in the direction of eliminating bad investments, liquidating debt, and reducing speculative excesses. What we have seen, especially since the stock market peak of early 2000, is a knock-down, drag-out battle between the Fed’s effort to avoid a recession, limit the recession, and stimulate growth with its only tool, money creation, while the market demands the elimination of bad investments and excess debt. The Fed was also motivated to save the stock market from collapsing, which in some ways they have been able to do. The market, in contrast, will insist on liquidation of unsustainable debt, removal of investment mistakes made over several decades, and a dramatic revaluation of the stock market. In this go-around, the Fed has pulled out all the stops and is more determined than ever, yet the market is saying that new and healthy growth cannot occur until a major cleansing of the system occurs. Does anyone think that tariffs and interest rates of 1% will encourage the rebuilding of our steel and textile industries anytime soon? Obviously, something more is needed.
tariff
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism : Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.” That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and savers — in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:24
Economics and War Almost every war has an economic component, some more obvious than others. Our own civil war dealt with slavery, but tariffs and economic oppression by the North were also major factors. Remember, only a small number of southern soldiers personally owned slaves, yet they were enthusiastic in their opposition to the northern invasion. The battles fought in the Middle East since WWI have had a lot to do with securing Arab oil fields for the benefit of western nations. Not only are wars fought for economic reasons, wars have profound economic consequences for the countries involved, even if one side is spared massive property damage. The economic consequences of war play a major role in bringing hostilities to an end. The consequences are less tolerated by the citizens of countries whose leaders drag them into offensive and unnecessary wars. The determination to fight on can’t compete with those who see their homeland threatened by foreign invaders.
tariff
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
July 26, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn’t it ironic that the proponents of “free trade agreements” like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against “subsidized” sectors of the Chinese economy? In reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House Floor as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to “free trade” with Central America we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China.
tariff
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:34
Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super- nationalist sentiments, threat of force, and even war are resorted to, all to solve the problems artificially created by a deeply flawed monetary and economic system.
tariff
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:60
Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures.
tariff
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:3
One thing certain is that the immediate impact would be higher prices for consumer goods for middle class Americans. In many ways a weaker dollar would act as an import tax just as if it were a tariff. Both are considered protectionist in nature.
tariff
Statement On Chinese Currency
9 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 50:10
Neither tariffs nor forced devaluations can solve the problem.
tariff
“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.
tariff
Foreign Government Investment in the U.S. Economy and Financial Sector
March 5, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 11:6
Sovereign wealth funds are a necessary consequence of fiscal and monetary policies which have left us overextended. Actions to stifle the operations of sovereign wealth funds and corresponding retaliatory actions by foreign countries could have the same detrimental effects on the economy as the trade wars begun after passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Rather than take actions to limit or prohibit the actions of sovereign wealth funds, I would urge my colleagues to take action to end our inflationary monetary policy.
tariff
Statement on Sovereign Wealth Funds
September 10, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 58:3
In either case, most politicians overlook the fact that we are in this situation because of our loose monetary and fiscal policy. Actions that would stifle the operations of foreign sovereign wealth funds would likely result in corresponding retaliatory actions by foreign countries against American pension funds and could have the same detrimental effects on the economy as the trade wars begun after passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Rather than limiting or prohibiting investment by sovereign wealth funds, we should be concerned with striking at the root of the problem and addressing inflationary monetary and fiscal policy.
tariff
Foreign Policy
September 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 92:6
I would suggest another proposal for our foreign policy, not using bombs and bribes, but what about neither one? What about just talking to people? What about reducing tariffs? What about trading with them? Instead, it is this form of foreign policy that will not serve our interests.
tariff
- 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.
tariff
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, proponents of individual liberty and low-tariffs, positions held by a scant few. We opposed the fast-track authority for what it is: an unconstitutional shift of power designed to promote managed trade to benefit the politically connected. But the arguments of principled free-traders were cavalierly dismissed by the supporters of fast-track; thoughtful opposition is not allowed when it comes to violating the Constitution.
tariff
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 13 ... Cached
Fast-track is the solution to a non-existent problem. There is no reason why free trade - if that is really the desired goal - cannot be accomplished without existing structure. Agreements can be easily drawn up between nations in a simple, efficient fashion - with Congress' full participation. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length, it's only when protections for various industries, bonuses for certain corporations, are added in fine print that the agreements turn into novels.
tariff
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
The whole debate over fast-track, slow-track and trade barriers completely ignores a very simple reality: countries that impose high tariffs on the people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export products to them.
tariff
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
The bottom-line of both options, of course, is higher taxes for Americans. Higher taxes to finance the subsidies, or higher taxes on incoming products (and make no mistake, a tariff is a tax, paid by the American consumer).
tariff
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
We need to better explain that the founding fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the War for Independence understood the difference. One only need read John Dickenson's Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer to discover this.
tariff
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.
tariff
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced.
tariff
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a "cost" of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a "deal."
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
"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.
tariff
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.
tariff
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
tariff
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.
tariff
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
When Congress attempts to punish certain nations by imposing tariffs on their products, it really simply punishes average Americans who end up paying more for the goods they buy every day. Tariffs especially harm the poorest American families, who spend roughly half of their income on just two things: food and clothes. These basic necessities are the most highly-taxed items imported into the United States. Of course many families don't realize that they pay very high import tariffs, because the taxes are buried in the cost of everyday items. Yet estimates show that most poor families pay $1,100 annually because of import taxes. So while it's easy for Congress to impose self-righteous tariffs as a political statement, we forget that our own poorest citizens pay the real price.
tariff
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
tariff
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.
tariff
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
It’s easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.
tariff
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. The tariffs will especially affect Texas, where building trades use large amounts of imported steel. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re "protecting American workers." What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat.
tariff
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
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.
tariff
A New Declaration
03 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 03 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Indeed, one has to wonder how Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would react to the current state of affairs. After all, they were outraged by mere import tariffs of a few pennies on the dollar. Today, the average American pays roughly 50 percent of their income in direct and indirect taxes.
tariff
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks
09 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 September 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.
tariff
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.
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.