U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | The Fed |
The Fed
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.
The Fed
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:62
The international currency crisis: Congress lacks concern and understanding of the significance of the Asian currency crisis. Monetary policy has never excited many Members of the Committee on Banking, let alone other members of Congress. A handful of Members do consistently complain to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but inevitably it is to object to the high interest rates and not enough credit being available to either the poor or the rich beneficiaries of Central Bank credit largesse.
The Fed
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:66
The genius of it all is that Federal Reserve credit expansion and its off-budget budgeting permits these funds to be spent without oversight. IMF appropriations are not even counted toward the deficit, and credit expansion is under complete control of the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:73
Currency issues are serious and a much bigger problem than Congress realizes. Even the Fed has convinced itself it is quite capable of managing our fiat currency and our financial markets through any crisis. The money managers are every bit as powerful as the Congress, which taxes and spends, but the Federal Reserve’s actions are much less scrutinized.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:81
Devolution. Block grants are the popular vehicle to restore local control of the Federal bureaucracy. The housing bill, the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding through the block grant system of devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made in the early 1970s under Nixon called revenue-sharing. It did not work and was dropped.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:117
Some still believe that “hate crimes” in America are limited to identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. But it’s scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 5:6
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846 which stops the administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the Federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on American parents so they may better provide for the education of their own children.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
National Education Test
5 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 6:8
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2846, which stops the Administration from ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all legislation authorizing the creation of a national test. Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over their children’s education to the American people by shutting down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on America’s parents so they may provide for the education of their own children.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 24:4
In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the “defense and welfare” clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Credit Union Membership Access Act
1 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 33:4
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulations can only be larger.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:4
Alan Greenspan took over the Fed a few months before the stock market crash of October, 1997. In the 10 years that Greenspan has headed the Fed, $2 trillion of new credit has been created as measured by M3. Banks threatened by bankruptcy in the early 1990s received generous assistance from the Fed policy of low interest rates and rapid credit expansion as a response to the recession of 1991. Fed fund rates were held at 3 percent for well over a year. This generous dose of Fed credit has fueled the 5-year superboom on Wall Street.
The Fed
The Bubble
28 April 1998 1998 Ron Paul 39:54
Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent. Liberals stick to the old cliche´ that all that’s needed are more welfare benefits. They are, I’m sure, influenced by the fact that if more welfare benefits are handed out, they can count on the Federal Reserve to accommodate them. Unfortunately this will continue to motivate them to argue for a loose monetary policy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:4
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.
The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Bad Idea
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 45:9
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Girl Arrested For Rescuing Classmate In Asthma Attack
5 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 47:4
The other day there was a story in the media that said there was a child suffering from an acute attack of asthma. Now, there was another asthmatic in the class, and she did what seemed to come natural to her: She went and gave her a whiff of her nebulizer and the girl immediately came out of her acute asthma attack. She was quickly apprehended under a Federal statute saying that she was disobeying the Federal law on the use of drugs.
The Fed
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 because it furthers the federal stranglehold over higher education. Instead of furthering federal control over education, Congress should focus on allowing Americans to devote more of their resources to higher education by dramatically reducing their taxes. There are numerous proposals to do this before this Congress. For example, the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act (HR 2847), of which I am an original cosponsor, allows taxpayers to deposit up to $5,000 per year in a pre-paid tuition plan without having to pay tax on the interest earned, thus enabling more Americans to afford college. This is just one of the many fine proposals to reduce the tax burden on Americans so they can afford a higher education for themselves and/or their children. Other good ideas which I have supported are the PASS A+ accounts for higher education included in last year’s budget, and the administration’s HOPE scholarship proposal, of which I was amongst the few members of the majority to champion. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.
The Fed
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:2
Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot exist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions dependent upon 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 numerous provisions in HR 6. Clearly, federal funding is being used as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
FDIC Problem
13 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 51:6
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country’s national police force and further “justify” the federal Justice Department’s intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Individuals with Disabilities Act
16 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.
The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!
The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based “experts.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998 1998 Ron Paul 65:10
For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 79:8
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.
The Fed
Banking Regulations
4 August 1998 1998 Ron Paul 93:11
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulation can only be larger . . . The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Worldwide Financial Crisis
10 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 97:9
The Federal Reserve hints at lower interest rates which means more easy credit. This may be construed as a positive for the market, but it only perpetuates a flawed monetary system.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 101:11
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers’ dollars to spend as they wish.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 102:4
But last night an emergency meeting was called by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was not called by the banks and the security firms that were standing to lose the money, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called an emergency meeting late last night. Some of the members of this meeting, the attendees, came back from Europe just to attend this meeting because it was of such a serious nature. They put together a package of $3.5 billion to bail out this company.
The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 102:10
We need to have a revamping of the monetary system, but certainly it cannot be saved, it cannot be improved, by more paper money out of thin air, and that is what the Federal Reserve System is doing.
The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 102:11
I would like to remind my colleagues that when the Federal Reserve talks about lowering interest rates, like Mr. Greenspan announced yesterday, or alluded to, this means that the Federal Reserve will create new credit. Where do they get new credit and new money? They get it out of thin air. This, of course, will lower interest rates in the short run and this will give a boost to a few people in trouble and it will bail out certain individuals.
The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 102:17
But we go one step further. The Congress has reneged on its responsibility and has not maintained the responsibility of maintaining value in the dollar. It has turned it over to a very secretive body, the Federal Reserve System, that has no responsibility to the U.S. Congress. So I argue for the case of watching out for the dollar and argue for sound money, and not to allow this to progress any further.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
World Financial Markets
1 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 104:11
Credit conditions that allow a company with less than $1 billion in capital to buy $100 billion worth of stock with borrowed money and manage $1.2 trillion worth of derivatives is about as classic an example as one could ever find of speculative excess brought on by easy credit. As long as capital is thought to come from a computer at the Federal Reserve and not from savings, the financial problems the world faces today will persist.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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).
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.
The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 125:20
A former U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, recently told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “the philosophy of (the Attorney General’s office) the last 10 to 15 years is whatever works is right,” when it comes to enforcing federal laws which essentially all are unconstitutional. It’s this attitude by the federal police agents that the American people must reject and not only when it applies to a particular President some want to shield.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
6 January 1999 1999 Ron Paul 1:2
The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act halts the greatest threat to liberty today: the growth of the surveillance state. Unless Congress stops authorizing the federal bureaucracy to stamp and number the American people federal officials will soon have the power to arbitrarily prevent citizens from opening a bank account, getting a job, traveling, or even seeking medical treatment unless their “papers are in order!”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:37
Eighty thousand armed Federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers now patrol our land and business establishments. Suspicious religious groups are monitored and sometimes destroyed without due process of law, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Local and state jurisdiction is rarely recognized once the feds move in.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:57
After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:71
The Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, when the Dow was at approximately 6,500, cautioned the Nation about irrational exuberance and for a day or two the markets were subdued. But while openly worrying about an unsustained stock market boom, he nevertheless accelerated the very credit expansion that threatened the market and created the irrational exuberance.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:72
From December 1996, at the time that Greenspan made this statement, to December 1998, the money supply soared. Over $1 trillion of new money, as measured by M–3, was created by the Federal Reserve. MZM, another monetary measurement, is currently expanding at a rate greater than 20 percent. This generous dose of credit has sparked even more irrational exuberance, which has taken the Dow to over 9,000 for a 30 percent increase in just two years.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:81
The most astute money manager cannot balance inflation against deflation as long as there is continued credit expansion. The system inevitably collapses, as it finally did in Japan in the 1990s. Even the lack of the CPI inflation as reported by the Federal Reserve is suspect.
The Fed
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:87
Congress is responsible for the value of the dollar. Yet, as we have done too often in other areas, we have passed this responsibility on to someone else; in this case, to the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
Federal Communications Commission
25 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act
2 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 11:4
Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a recent study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act
2 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 11:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
War Powers Resolution
17 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 20:16
As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
4 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 36:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level!
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 49:10
The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth
10 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett’s “Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor”, which recently appeared in The Wall Street Journal, to all of my colleagues. Mr. Bartlett’s article provides an excellent overview of the evidence that an increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage reduces teenage employment. Since those shut out of entry-level work are unlikely to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future, an increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for millions of Americans. This point was also highlighted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in testimony before the Senate in January when he pointed out that “All the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that the people who are the most needy of getting on the lower rungs of the ladder of our income scales, develop skills, getting the training, are unable to earn the minimum wage. As a consequence, they cannot get started. And I think we have to be very careful about thinking that we can somehow raise standards of living by mandating an increase in the minimum wage rate.” I hope all of my colleagues will carefully consider how increasing the minimum wage decreases opportunities for our nation’s youth and refrain from reducing economic opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder by raising the minimum wage.
The Fed
Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth
10 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 57:6
The federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, but applied only to the small minority of workers who were engaged in interstate commerce. The first data we have on teenage unemployment are from 1948. From then until a significant expansion of the minimum wage in 1956, teenage unemployment was quite low by today’s standards and was actually lower for blacks than whites. Between 1948 and 1955 unemployment averaged 11.3% for black teenage males and 11.6% for whites.
The Fed
Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth
10 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 57:8
Despite such evidence, supporters continued to push for ever higher and more inclusive minimum-wage rates, which were raised almost yearly between 1961 and 1981. At each point the unemployment rate for black teenagers tended to ratchet higher. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teenage males averaged 40.7% — four times its early 1950s level, when the minimum wage was much lower and its coverage less extensive. That year, the federally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that each 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces teenage employment by between 1% and 3%.
The Fed
Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth
10 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 57:10
In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, economist Kenneth Couch Translated these percentages into raw numbers. At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs lost in 1997. At the higher end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997. He estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teenage employment by between 145,000 and 436,000 jobs.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 81:10
Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to America’s parents, teachers, and students.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:18
In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 109:3
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people’s money.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:12
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 112:14
Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently, though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer’s role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute assisted suicide.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:75
Federal funding for education grows every year, hitting $38 billion this year, $1 billion more than requested by the administration and 7 percent more than last year. Great congressional debates occur over the size of the classroom, student and teacher testing, bilingual education, teacher salaries, school violence and drug usage. And it is politically incorrect to point out that all these problems are not present in the private schools. Every year, there is less effort at the Federal level to return education to the people, the parents and the local school officials.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:95
Our Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System, established in 1913 after two failed efforts in the 19th Century, has been the driving force behind the development of our current fiat system. Since the turn of the century, we have seen our dollar lose 95 percent of its purchasing power, and it continues to depreciate. This is nothing less than theft, and those responsible should be held accountable.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:96
The record of the Federal Reserve is abysmal, yet at the close of the 20th Century, its chairman is held in extremely high esteem, with almost zero calls for study of sound money with the intent to once again have the dollar linked to gold.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:105
All the price inflation, all the distortions, all the recessions and unemployment should be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is an accomplice in promoting all unnecessary war, as well as the useless and harmful welfare programs, with its willingness to cover Congress’ profligate spending habits.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:106
Even though the Fed did great harm before 1971 after the total elimination of the gold-dollar linkage, the problems of deficit spending, welfare expansion and military-industrial complex influence have gotten much worse.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:111
There was a good reason the Federal Reserve rushed to rescue long-term capital management with a multibillion dollar bailout: It was unadulterated fear that the big correction was about to begin. Up until now, feeding the credit bubble with even more credit has worked, and is the only tool they have to fight the business cycle, but eventually control will be lost.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:121
Congress’ careless attitude about the Federal bureaucracy and its penchant for incessant legislation have prompted serious abuse of every American citizen. Last year alone there were more than 42,000 civil forfeitures of property occurring without due process of law or conviction of a crime, and oftentimes the owners were not even charged with a crime.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:126
These two incidents are well-known, but thousands of other similar abuses routinely occur with little publicity. The Federal police state seen in the action the Ruby Ridge and Waco hopefully is not a sign of things to come, but it could be, if we are not careful.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 3:3
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts * * * threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 7:4
* The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets their child’s special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to read Mr. Evers’ article on the dangers of the federal endorsement of ‘fuzzy math’ and support my efforts to improve education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.
The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 7:8
In response to the Department of Education, about two hundred mathematicians and scientists signed an open letter to Secretary Riley, which was published in the Washington Post on November 18, 1999 (see letter at www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm.) The signers, who included Nobel laureates and some of the country’s most eminent mathematicians, didn’t like the Department of Education’s new equation: Federal Math=Fuzzy Math. The letter asked Riley to withdraw the federal endorsements. The news stories that followed got at the essence of the debate.
The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 7:10
Leinward is not saying that the federally approved programs cover the material taught in too-performing countries such as Japan or Hungary or that the programs contain complete coverage of elementary and secondary school math. What he and his fellow panelists want is a watered-down program that all American students — as currently trained — can master.
The Fed
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 9:2
One of the most egregious portions of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities. Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe v. Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received.
The Fed
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT
February 16, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 9:3
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:1
* Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.
The Fed
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 15:10
* In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 16:5
* The “Family Education Freedom Act” fulfills the American people’s goal of greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education, rather than forcing them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 16:10
* Mr. Speaker, my education agenda of returning control over the education dollar to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education. First of all, unlike plans to expand the federal education bureaucracy, my bills are free of “guidelines” and restrictions that dilute the actual number of dollars spent to educate a child. In addition, the money does not have to go through federal and state bureaucrats, each of whom gets a cut, before it reaches the classroom. Returning power over the education dollar will also free public school teachers, administrators and principals from having to comply with numerous federal mandates. Instead, school personnel and officials may work with parents and other concerned citizens to make sure all children are receiving the best possible education.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
IDEA FULL FUNDING ACT OF 2000
May 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 33:2
* IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.
The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 35:5
Since I introduced this legislation on the first day of the 106th Congress, my office has received countless calls, letter, faxes, and e-mails from Americans around the country who are tired of having to divulge their national ID number in order to get a job, open bank account, or go fishing. The strong public outrage over the federal banking regulators’ “know your customer” scheme, as well as the attempt to turn state drivers’ licenses into a national ID card, and the Clinton Administration’s so-called “medical privacy” proposals all reveal the extent to which the American people oppose the “surveillance state.” These Americans believe that since Congress created this problem, Congress must fix it.
The Fed
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
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:3
* Business cycles are well understood. They are not a natural consequence of capitalism but instead result from central bank manipulation of credit. This is especially true when the monetary unit is undefinable as it is in a fiat monetary system, such as ours. Therefore, it is correct to place blame on the Federal Reserve for all depressions/recessions, inflation, and much of the unemployment since 1913. The next downturn, likewise, will be the fault of the Fed.
The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:4
* It is true that the apparent prosperity and the boom part of the cycle are a result of the Federal Reserve credit creation, but the price that must always be paid and the unfairness of inflationism makes it a dangerous process.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:9
* This silly notion of money and credit gives rise to the conventional wisdom that once the economy gets really rolling, it’s time for the Fed to stop economic growth. The false supposition is that economic growth causes higher prices and higher labor costs, and these evils must be prevented by tightening credit and raising interest rates. But these are only the consequences of the previous monetary expansion and blaming rising prices or higher labor costs is done only to distract from the real culprit-monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 36:12
* Fine-tuning the economy, through monetary manipulation is a dangerous game to play. We are now completing nearly a decade of rapid monetary growth and evidence is now appearing indicating that we will soon start to pay for our profligate ways. The financial bubble that the Fed manufactured over the past decade or two will burst and the illusion of our great wealth will end. In time, also the illusion of “surpluses for as far as the eye can see” will end. Then the Congress will be forced to take much more seriously the budgetary problems that it pretends do not exist.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 39:6
The Federal Reserve believes that prosperity causes high prices and rising wages, thus causing it to declare war on a symptom of its own inflationary policy, deliberately forcing an economic slowdown, a sad and silly policy, indeed. The Fed also hopes that higher interest rates will curtail the burgeoning trade deficit and prevent the serious currency crisis that usually results from currency-induced trade imbalances. And of course, the Fed hopes to do all this without a recession or depression.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 66:3
The bill calls for Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand surveillance in order to enforce the proposed law. In order to enforce this bill (should it become law), law enforcement would have to obtain access to an individual’s computer to know if one is gambling online. Perhaps Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law enforcement agents in the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy on their customers under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of intrusion that caused such a popular backlash against the ‘Know Your Customer’ proposal.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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:
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!’
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 75:8
* Many effective techniques may not be readily supported by ‘scientific research.’ Therefore, this program may end up preventing the use of many effective means of reading instruction. The requirement that recipients of federal funds use only those reading techniques based on ‘scientific research,’ (which in practice means those methods approved by the federally-funded ‘experts’) ensures that a limited number of reading methodologies will, in essence, be ‘stamped with federal approval.’
The Fed
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.’
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
September 25, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 80:2
* IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.
The Fed
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 84:3
The Federal Reserve clings to the silly notion that economic growth causes inflation, thus trying to avoid the blame it deserves. The Federal Reserve then concludes that an economic slowdown is the solution to the problem it created. Those who argue to continue the inflationary process are equally in error. As if the economy were an airplane, the monetary authorities talk about a soft landing with the false hope of painlessly paying for the excesses enjoyed for a decade.
The Fed
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 84:7
The Federal Reserve, which maintains a monopoly control over the money supply, credit and interest rates, is indeed the culprit and should be held accountable. But the real responsibility falls on the Congress, for it is Congress’ neglect that permits the central bank to debase the dollar at will.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 85:16
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the federal education bureaucracy ‘less bad.’ Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.
The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 86:6
Today, the American people have a negative savings rate, which means that we get our so-called capital from a printing press, because there are no savings and no funds to invest. The Federal Reserve creates these funds to be invested. On a short-term, this seems to benefit everyone.
The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 86:8
The only problem with this is it always ends, and it always ends badly. And this is the reason that we have to meet up with a policy that seems ridiculous. The economy seems to be doing quite well, but the Federal Reserve comes along and says there is a problem with economic growth. Economic growth might cause prices to go up; so, therefore, what we have to do is cut off the economic growth. If you have slower growth, the prices will not go up any longer.
The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 86:9
They are talking about a symptom and not the cause. The cause is the Federal Reserve. The problem is that the Federal Reserve has been granted authority that is unconstitutional to go and counterfeit money, and until we recognize that and deal with that, we will continue to have financial problems.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 91:2
* H.R. 4271 not only singles out science for special emphasis, certain positions of the bill will lead to a national science curriculum. For instance, the bill calls for the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to coordinate and disseminate information on ‘standard’ math and science curricula as well as licensing requirements for teachers of math, science, engineering or technology. While local school districts are not forced to adopt these standards, local schools will be pressured to adopt these standards because they are the ones favored by their DC-based overlords. I would also ask the drafters of this bill what purpose is served by spending taxpayer moneys to create and disseminate a model curriculum at the federal level if their intent is not to have local schools adopt the federally-approved model?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:9
* The small business tax relief in this bill is more than outweighed by the provisions raising the federally-mandated minimum wage. While I certainly understand the motivation to help lower wage workers, the reality is that a minimum wage hike hurts lower income Americans the most. When an employer cannot afford to pay a higher wage, the employer has no choice but to hire less workers. As a result, young people with fewer skills and less experience find it harder to obtain an entry-level job. Raising the minimum wage actually reduces opportunities and living standards for the very people the administration claims will benefit from this legislation! It’s time to stop fooling ourselves about the basic laws of economics, and realize that Congress cannot legislate a higher standard of living. Congress should not allow itself to believe that the package of small business tax cuts will fully compensate businesses and their employees for the damage inflicted by a minimum wage hike. Congress is not omnipotent; we cannot pretend to strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and wage mandates so that no American businesses or workers are harmed. It may make my colleagues feel good to raise the minimum wage, but the real life consequences of this bill will be felt by those who can least afford diminished job opportunities.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:6
* We have already seen signs of economic troubles ahead . Although the Fed plans for only a slight slow down and a so-called ‘soft landing,’ the correction from the monetary mischief of the last 10 years has already been determined. Although the dollar currently remains strong, because other currencies are so weak, there is a limitation on how long we can create new dollars without them being devalued. A weaker dollar will surely come in our not too distant future. Our huge current account deficit and trade imbalances warn us of that day.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:2
* I do not believe either should be blamed. I think we should deal with the real cause of the business cycle, and that is the Federal Reserve system. The FederalReserve system causes and brings about a boom period in a cycle, but it also brings about the bust. Because the bust, the correction, is inevitable consequence of the boom caused by unduly inflating the money supply.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:4
* The only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is by inflating the money supply, increasing the money supply, which is the cause of our problems. So if the cause of our problem is the inflation, increasing the money supply which causes a boom, we can hardly solve our problems by further inflating. And then, too, there is a period of time in the business cycle where inflating the money supply or lowering interest rates do not get the response that many people hope for.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:7
* The problem I see is that Congress for too long has conceded too much of their authority over control of the monetary system to the Federal Reserve system, which acts in secrecy.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:8
* It is something that is directly stated in the Constitution that the Congress shall have the responsibility over the money supply, not a Federal Reserve system. Quite frankly, the Federal Reserve system is not even authorized by the Constitution.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:9
* Now, if in the midst of a recession the Federal Reserve decides that they want to lower interest rates but the dollar is also dropping and we lower interest rates, we cause the dollar to go down and price inflation will occur because of that. So it is not quite so simple as saying, well, let us just tell the Fed what to do, lower the interest rates and it will solve our problems.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:13
* What I think is going to happen is that once the recession sets in and there is a need for additional spending and there will be no longer a concern at all about the deficit; and that is when the Congress will spend, the Federal Reserve will inflate. And it may temporarily help, but in the long-run it does not do the trick. It is not the way we gain economic prosperity out of a printing press. We just cannot allow a Federal Reserve to believe it creates capital by creating credit out of thin air.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:14
* We will soon be hearing a lot about interest rates. There will be a loud clamor from all quarters for the Fed to lower interest rates. It will be argued that it is necessary in order to help stop the stock market slide/crash and also to stimulate a sagging economy.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:15
* What we must remember though, is that every time someone pressures the Fed to lower interest rates, they are saying to the Fed that the money supply must be inflated. The only tool the Fed has for lowering interest rates is to increase the supply of money. They are arguing the case for further systematic and deliberate debasement of the US dollar. Those who chant for lower interest rates are literally attacking the dollar.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:16
* And yet, depending on many variables, a deliberate attempt by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates may instead lead to higher interest rates and precipitate a period of accelerating price inflation. Instead of boosting the stock market, this effort can do the opposite by producing conditions that will lower the stock market and do nothing to avert the economic slump that more people are now worried about.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:18
* Many are starting to talk now about a legislative stalemate with no clear majority in the House or Senate and the Presidency being uncertain. This concern about a stalemate is overblown. Not that the problem isn’t serious, but I am certain that under the conditions that we are about to experience, the Congress and the President will be all too willing to deal with the deteriorating conditions with increased spending and with a concerted bi-partisan effort to pressure the Federal Reserve to further inflate the currency in pursuing the fiction that the Federal Reserve can prevent a “hard landing” by merely increasing the money supply in an effort to dictate short-term Fed funds rates.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:20
* For decades now the Federal Reserve has followed a policy of “fine-tuning” the economy and with the relative success of the recent boom cycle, it has been deceived into believing its ability is more than it actually is. But in this effort to fine-tune the economy the Federal Reserve, since the middle of 1999 until May of this year, has systematically raised the Fed’s fund rates from 4.75% to 6.5%.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:22
* Ironically it’s argued that the deliberate raising the cost of borrowing money for everyone is that this will hold prices in check. Yet consumers and businesses suffer from this additional cost - pushing all prices upward. But even more ironic is the claim that they now care about “inflation” after a decade of massive monetary inflation-the real culprit.-The Federal Reserve meanwhile ignores the fact that the money supply is key to monetary policy, not admitting the damage has already been done.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:23
* Signs of economic slowdown are now all around with the seriously slumping stock market being the most visible and eliciting the most concern. As the slowdown spreads and accelerates the politicians will be anxious to advise the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. Politicians from both sides of the aisle will become deeply and especially concerned when the evidence is clear that the revenues are plummeting and the “surplus” is disappearing. Since this will challenge the ability of the politician to continue the spending spree many will become deeply and vocally concerned.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:24
* The big debate already started in the financial and political circles is when, how much, and how quickly the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates. Indeed all will clamor to lower rates to revive the economy again. With the signs of rising prices in many sectors, especially energy, and in spite of the weak economy we can expect the Federal Reserve chairman to issue precautionary statements. He will reiterate that he must watch out for the resurgence of (price) inflation. In spite of his statements about concerns for inflation, if the stock market slumps and the economic slowdown is significant enough, we can be certain of one thing, the money supply will continue to grow rapidly in an attempt to keep interest rates low. But Mr. Greenspan will never admit that inflating is exactly what he’s been generously doing for the past 13 years.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:25
* A short time after Chairman Greenspan took over the reigns of the Federal Reserve the stock market crash of 1987 prompted him to alleviate concerns with a heavy dose of monetary inflation. Once again, in the slump of 1991 and 1992, he again re-ignited the financial bubble by more monetary inflation. There was no hesitation on Mr. Greenspan’s part to inflate as necessary to alleviate the conditions brought about by the Mexican financial crisis, the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble crisis, and with the Long-Term Capital Management crisis. Just one year ago the non-existent Y2K crisis prompted huge, unprecedented monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve. All these efforts kept interest rates below the market rate and contributed to the financial bubble that is now starting to deflate. But, there is no doubt that this monetary inflation did maintain an economy that seemed like it would never quit growing. Housing markets thrived, the stock market and bond market thrived, and in turn, the great profits made in these areas, especially gains made by stock market transactions, produced profits that inflated greatly the revenues that flowed into the Treasury. The serious problem that we now face, a collapsing stock market and a rapidly weakening economy, was caused by inflating the money supply along with artificially low interest rates. More inflation and continuing the policy of artificially low interest rates can’t possibly be the solution to the dilemma we face.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:27
* Besides, Alan Greenspan knows full well that the scenario we are now experiencing can be made worse by lowering interest rates. Under the conditions we are facing it’s very likely the dollar will weaken and deliberately lowering interest rates will accelerate this trend. Price inflation, which the Fed claims it is so concerned about, will not necessarily go away even with a weak economy. And the one thing we will come to realize that even the best of all central bankers, Alan Greenspan, will not be able to determine interest rates at all times of the business cycle. Inflation premiums, confidence, the value of the dollar, and political conditions all can affect interest rates and these are out of the control of the Federal Reserve Board.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:29
* The question is what should one expect the Federal Reserve Board to eventually do? We can expect it to continue to inflate as they have always chosen with every crisis. There’s no evidence that Alan Greenspan would choose to do anything else regardless of his expression of concern about inflation and the value of the dollar. Greenspan still believes he can control the pain and produce a weakened economy that will not get out of control. But there’s no way that he can guarantee that the United States might not slip into a prolonged lethargy, similar to what Japan is now experiencing. We can be certain that Congress will accommodate with whatever seems to be necessary by bailing out a weakened financial sector.
The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 97:31
* We must someday recognize that neither Congress nor the Fed is supposed to “run” the economy. Yet we still live with the belief that the Administration, our Presidents, our Congress and the Federal Reserve should run the economy. This is a dangerous concepts and always leads to the painful corrections to so-called the good times for which everyone is anxious to take credit.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 3:4
* Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 3:5
* Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001 2001 Ron Paul 5:7
Setting aside for the moment that nowhere in Article I, Sec. 8 (the enumerated powers clause) of the Federal Constitution can authority be found to take money from U.S. taxpayers for this purpose, additional problems result from passage of this resolution as well as those actions certain to follow as a consequence of the bill’s passage.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:55
During the past 30 years in the post-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sentiment has permitted us to inflate our money supply and get others to accept the dollar as if it were as good as gold. This convenient arrangement has discouraged savings, which are now at an historic low. Savings in a capitalist economy are crucial for furnishing capital and establishing market interest rates. With negative savings and with the FED fixing rates by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, we have abandoned a necessary part of free-market capitalism, without which a smooth and growing economy is sustainable.
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:58
The mantra now is for the FED to quickly lower short-term interest rates to stimulate the economy and alleviate a liquidity crisis. This policy may stimulate a boom and may help in a mild downturn, but it doesn’t always work in a bad recession. It actually could do great harm since it could weaken the dollar, which in turn would allow market forces instead to push long-term interest rates higher. Deliberately lowering interest rates isn’t even necessary for the dollar to drop, since our policy has led to a current-account deficit of a magnitude that demands the dollar eventually readjust and weaken.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:68
Much else related to artificially low interest rates goes unnoticed. An overpriced stock market, overcapacity in certain industries, excesses in real-estate markets, artificially high bond prices, general mal-investments, excessive debt, and speculation all result from the generous and artificial credit the Federal Reserve pumps into the financial system. These distortions are every bit, if not more, harmful than rising prices. As the economy soars from the stimulus effect of low interest rates, growth and distortions compound themselves. In a slump the reverse is true, and the pain and suffering is magnified as the adjustment back to reality occurs.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:76
But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it’s all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:121
There are ten times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80% of the drug arrests are for non-violent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace. Someday we must wake up and realize the federal drug war is a farce. It has failed and we must change our approach.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:59
Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce, it has failed, and we must change our approach.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Economy
February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 13:6
Instead of blind faith in the Federal Reserve to run the economy, we should become more aware of Congress’s responsibility for maintaining a sound dollar and removing the monopoly power of our central bank to create money and credit out of thin air and fix short term interest rates—which is the real cause of all our economic downturns.
The Fed
The Economy
February 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 13:7
Between 1995 and today, the Greenspan Fed increased the money supply as measured by (MZM) by $1.9 trillion or a 65% increase. There is no reason to look any further for the explanation of why the economy is slipping with labor costs rising, energy costs soaring, and medical and education costs skyrocketing, while the stock market is disintegrating. Until we look at the unconstitutional monopoly power the Federal Reserve has over money and credit we can expect a continuation of our problems. Demanding lower interest rates is merely insisting the Federal Reserve deliberately create even more credit, which caused the problem in the first place. We cannot restore soundness to the dollar by debasing the dollar—which is what lowering interest rates is all about—printing more money.
The Fed
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 14:7
* As a result of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 and the action taken by the federally-funded NLRB, workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees for unwanted representation as a condition of employment. Federal law may even force workers to accept union representation against the will of the majority of workers.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 15:29
In addition, the federal law pre-empted state laws, that prohibited physicians from receiving payments for not providing care. In other words, payments to physicians by HMOs for certain behavior (fewer admissions to hospitals, rationing care, prescribing cheaper medicines) were now legal.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:8
Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.
The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:10
But the artificial nature of today’s world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.
The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:12
One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it’s declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!
The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:13
But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems
20 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by a half a percentage point. They have been asked to lower this interest rates by just about everybody in the country. Whether they are investors or politicians, everybody literally has been screaming at the Fed and Alan Greenspan to lower the interest rates, lower the interest rates.
The Fed
Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems
20 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 22:3
Interest rates have been manipulated by the Federal Reserve as long as I can remember, especially in the last 30 years since we have had a total fiat monetary system. So it is the manipulation of interest rates that causes a problem.
The Fed
Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems
20 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 22:4
In a free market economy, you do not have a central bank pretending it has knowledge it does not have, that it knows exactly what the money supply should be and what interest rate should be. That is a prescription for disaster; and it leads to booms and busts, speculations in the stock markets, crashes in the stock markets. This is a wellknown phenomenon. It has been with us since 1913, since we have had the Federal Reserve. We have seen it in the speculation in the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s. It is ongoing.
The Fed
Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems
20 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 22:10
The money supply right now is currently rising at the rate of 20 percent, as measured by MZN. This is horrendous inflation. This is inflation. Everybody says no, there are reassurances. The Federal Reserve and all the statisticians say there is no inflation. The CPI is okay and the PPI is okay. But there is inflation. Because if one increases the supply of money, one is creating inflation.
The Fed
Addressing Monetary Problems
22 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 23:6
This is what is happening. Right now we are increasing the money supply as measured by MZM at the rate of 20 percent per year. This means that, ultimately, that dollar that we use to purchase goods and services will go down in value. And yet the only thing that we hear about is the cry to the Federal Reserve, just print more money, faster, because that will save us all. It will raise the stock market; it will make sure that the economy does not go down and go into a downturn.
The Fed
Addressing Monetary Problems
22 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 23:9
In 1996, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board talked about the exuberance, the irrational exuberance in the stock market; and yet I think he knew, I certainly knew, and others knew, that there was irrational exuberance, because even at that time we were printing money like crazy. There was overspeculation.
The Fed
Addressing Monetary Problems
22 March 2001 2001 Ron Paul 23:10
If he had been seriously concerned about the exuberance getting out of control in 1996, he might have considered not inflating the currency quite so rapidly, not devaluing the money quite so rapidly. But what has he done since that time? The Federal Reserve has literally created $2.3 trillion of new money since 1996, further creating a bigger bubble, which eventually had to collapse, and that is what we are in the midst of. It can be tough. It is going to be tough for a lot of people. We can have this economic downturn, and this means jobs and a standard of living that will be threatened.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 30:7
Rising prices and the economic slowdown must be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, the existing financial bubble is a consequence of the same policy of monetary expansion and artifically low interest rates. Although the NASDAQ bubble has already partially deflated, the entire world financial system suffers from the same distortion; and a lot more adjustment is required. Merely re-inflating with monetary expansion and manipulating interest rates will not solve the problems of debt, mal-investment and overcapacity that plague the system.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
16 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in opposition to tax-supported abortion.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
“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)
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 60:9
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 65:3
* When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, their was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 67:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in the Wall Street Journal which is headlined “In Praise of an Economic Revolutionary.” The column is authored by Mr. Bob McTeer, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 70:3
* One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
The Fed
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 70:5
[Page: E1538] GPO’s PDF by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from the this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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).
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:3
In the 20 th Century, however we saw the systematic undermining of sound money, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and the outright rejection of gold, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:4
We are now witnessing the effects of the accumulated problems of thirty years of fiat money-not only the dollar but also all the world currencies-something the world has never before experienced. Exactly how it plays out is yet unknown. Its severity will be determined by future monetary management- especially by the Federal Reserve. The likelihood of quickly resolving the deeply ingrained and worldwide imbalances built up over thirty years is remote. Yielding to the addiction of credit creation (as has been the case with every market correction over the past thirty years) remains irresistible to the central bankers of the world. Central planners, who occupy the seats of power in every central bank around the world, refuse to accept the fact that markets are more powerful and smarter than they are.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:9
The monetary inflation of the 1900s produced welcomed profits of $145 billion for the NASDAQ companies over the five years between 1996 and 2000. Astoundingly this entire amount was lost in the past year. This doesn’t even address the trillions of dollars of paper losses in stock values from its peak in early 2000. Congress has expressed concern about the staggering stock-market losses but fails to see the connection between the bubble economy and the monetary inflation generated by the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:10
Instead, Congress chooses to blame the analysts for misleading investors . The analysts may not be entirely blameless , but their role in creating the bubble is minimal compared to the misleading information that the Federal Reserve has provided, with artificially low interest rates and a financial market made flush with generous new credit at every sign of a correction over the past ten years.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:11
By preventing the liquidation of bad debt and the elimination of mal-investment and overcapacity, the Federal Reserve’s actions have kept the financial bubble inflated. Of course it’s an easy choice on the short run. Who would deliberately allow the market tendency to deflate back to stability? That would be politically unacceptable.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:12
Talk of sound money and balanced budgets is just that. When the economy sinks, the rhetoric for sound policy and a strong dollar may continue but all actions by the Congress and the Fed will be directed toward re-inflation and a congressional spending policy oblivious to all the promises regarding a balanced budget and the preservation of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:13
But if the Fed and its chairman, Alan Greenspan, have been able to guide us out of every potential crisis all the way back to the stock market crash of 1987, why shouldn’t we expect the same to happen once again? Mainly because there’s a limit to how long the monetary charade can be perpetuated. Now it looks like the international financial system built on paper money is coming to an end.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:20
Regardless of whether the experts demand a weak dollar or a strong dollar, each inevitably demands lower interest rates, hoping to spur the economy and save the stock market from crashing. But one must remember that the only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is to inflate the currency by increasing the money supply and by further debasing the currency. In the long term, the dollar is always weakened, even if the economy is occasionally stimulated on a short-run basis.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:21
Economic growth can hide the ill effects of monetary inflation by holding some prices in check. But it can’t prevent the over-capacity and mal-investment which causes the economic downturn. Of course, the central bankers cling to the belief that they can somehow prevent the ugly corrections known as recessions. Economic growth, when artificially stimulated by monetary growth and low interest rates, generates the speculation we’ve seen in the stock, bond and real estate markets, along with excessive debt. Once the need for rectifying the over-capacity is recognized by the market, these imbalances are destined to be wiped out. Prolonging the correction phase with the Fed’s efforts to re-inflate by diligently working for a soft landing, or even to prevent a recession, only postpones the day the economy can return to sustained growth. This is a problem the United States had in the 1930s and one that Japan has experienced for more than a decade, with no end in sight.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:23
Alan Greenspan made a concerted effort to stave off the 1991-1992 recession with numerous reductions in the Fed funds rate to no avail. The recession hit, and most people believe it led to George Bush’s defeat in the 1992 election. It wasn’t that Greenspan didn’t try, and in many ways the Bush people’s criticism of Greenspan’s effort is not justified. Greenspan, the politician, would have liked to please the elder Bush, but was unable to control events as he had wished. This time around, however, he’s been much more aggressive with the half-point cuts along with seven cuts in just eight months, for a total of a three-point cut in the Fed funds rate. But guess what? So far it hasn’t helped. Stocks continue to slide, and the economy is still in the doldrums. It is now safe to say that Greenspan is pushing on a string. In the year 2000, bank loans and commercial paper were growing at an annualized rate of 23%. In less than a year, in spite of this massive influx of new credit, these loans have crashed to a rate of minus 5%.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:26
The Federal Reserve credit created during the last eight months has not stimulated economic growth in technology or the industrial sector, but a lot of it ended up in the expanding real-estate bubble, churned by the $3.2 trillion of debt maintained by the GSEs.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:27
The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:28
In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:30
Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese “miracle” of the 1980s going forever.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:31
Concerned Federal Reserve economists are struggling to understand how the wealth effect of the stock market and real estate bubble affect economic activity and consumer spending. It should be no mystery, but it would be too much to expect the Fed to look to itself and its monetary policy for an explanation and assume responsibility for engineering the entire financial mess we’re in.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:37
The deception regarding price increases is supposed to reassure us and may do so for a while. The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:38
Serious problems lie ahead. If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:40
Someday, stable money based on the gold standard must be reconsidered. Stable money is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. The Federal Reserve Board’s goal of stable prices, economic growth and low interest rates, through centralized economic planning by manipulating money and credit, is a concoction of 20 th Century Keynesian economics. These efforts are not authorized by the Constitution, and are economically detrimental.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:46
But we must also reject the notion that one man, Alan Greenspan, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be- only the market can determine that. This must happen if we ever expect to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. It also must happen if we want to preserve free-market capitalism and personal liberty.
The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:49
In the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers :
The Fed
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001 2001 Ron Paul 77:9
In markets all things are cyclical, even the idea that markets are not cyclical. The notion that the millennial economy was in some way “new” was an early portent of confusion. Since the dawn of the industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and driving the pace of economic change. In 1850, as the telegraph was beginning to anticipate the Internet, about 65 percent of the American labor force worked on farms. In 2000, only 2.4 percent did. The prolonged migration of hands and minds from the field to the factor, office and classroom is all productivity growth — the same phenomenon the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board rhapsodizes over. It’s true, just as Alan Greenspan says, that technological progress is the bulwark of the modern economy. Then again, it has been true for most of the past 200 years.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 84:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. 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 individual responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal are provided for in the Constitution as a means of allowing Congress to deal with aggressive actions where a formal declaration of war against a foreign power is problematic, Originally intended to deal with piracy, letters of marque and reprisal represent an appropriate response to the piracy of the twentieth century: hijacking terrorism.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 90:27
It is both annoying and sad that there is so little interest by anyone in Washington in free market solutions to the world’s economic problems. True private ownership of property without regulation and abusive taxation is a thing of the past. Few understand how the Federal Reserve monetary policy causes the booms and the busts that, when severe, as now, only serve to enhance the prestige of the money managers- while most politicians and Wall Streeters demand that the Fed inflate the currency at an even more rapid rate. Today’s conditions give license to the politicians to spend our way out of recession, they hope.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:6
Printing money is not an answer, yet that is all that is offered. The clamor for low-interest rates by all those who benefit from fiat money has prompted the Fed to create new money out of thin air like never before. Driving the Fed funds rate down from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a level below the price inflation rate, represents nothing short of panic and has done nothing to recharge the economy. But as one would expect, confidence in the dollar is waning.
The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:7
I am sure, due to the crisis, a faith in fiat and a failure to understand the business cycle, the Fed will continue with the only thing it knows to do: credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.
The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 92:9
Since the Federal Reserve first panicked in early January, it has created $830 billion of fiat money out of thin air. The country is no richer. The economy is weaker. The stock market has continued downward, and unemployment has skyrocketed. Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 96:4
Madam Chairwoman, 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, 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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 104:12
It’s time for the executive and Congress to take a hard look at the police personnel amassing at the federal level and the extent to which we are concentrating them under any one individual short of the president. Congress should turn its most skeptical laser on the concept of an Office of Homeland Security and on any requests to institutionalize its director beyond the status of a special assistant to the president. We have survived for more than 200 years without a ministry of the interior or national police force, and we can effectively battle terrorism without creating one now.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 3:6
Therefore, if Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:5
The magnitude of the distortions of the 1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the Fed, on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide, suggests that this slowdown will not abort quickly.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:9
In recessions, to remain solvent, consumers ought to tighten their belts, pay off debt, and save. In a free market, this would lower market interest rates to once again make investments attractive. The confusing aspect of today’s economy is that consumers and even businesses continue profligate borrowing, in spite of problems on the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve, creating massive amounts of new credit.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:12
The Fed can’t control these rates, and they can’t control where the new credit they create goes. This means that resorting to, or trusting in, the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate congressional spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record default for U.S. corporate bonds. Worldwide, $110 billion of bonds were defaulted on last year.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:14
For over a year, the Fed has been massively inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done much good. This continuous influx of new credit instead delays the correction that must eventually come- the liquidation of bad debt, and the reduction of overcapacity. This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest rates around 1%. The market must be left to eliminate the misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:16
We should not expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide that free-market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare state and fiat money. Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it. Welfarism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:23
Here in the United States we have seen the process at work for several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction in our personal freedoms. This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems requiring even more of our attention and funding.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:49
The Social Security system depends on the value of the dollar and on future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants. But this policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power and that there won’t be enough young people to tax in the future. Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects to get to the next town. It tragically doesn’t work.
The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 5:65
11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are difficult to ascertain but could be quite significant. Although the recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money spent and the effect of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be further pressured to pursue a dangerous monetary inflation. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar and certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control should not be lightly dismissed.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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:
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:41
III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.
The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:43
This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.
The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:44
Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.
The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:45
By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.
The Fed
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)
The Fed
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:
The Fed
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.
The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:64
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.
The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange-Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.
The Fed
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].
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:18
Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a nonprofit organization that researches and studies what he calls the “gold cartel” (J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve), and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com, tells Insight that “Morgan Chase and other bullion banks are another Enron waiting to happen.” Murphy says, “Enron occurred because the nature of their business was obscured, there was no oversight and someone was cooking the books. Enron was deceiving everyone about their business operations C and the same thing is happening with the gold and bullion banks.”
The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:20
In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the BIS.
The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 8:26
Whether the Fed and others in the alleged “gold cartel” have conspired to suppress the price of gold may, in the end, be secondary to the growing need for financial transparency. Wall Street insiders agree that as long as regulators, analysts, accountants, and politicians can be lobbied and “corrupted” to permit special privileges, there will be more Enron-size failures.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:7
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services committee endorses increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system which is the root cause of America’s economic instability.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 20:5
Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation’s veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation’s highest ideals.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:10
Unfortunately, the backlash against corporate raiders, led by demographic politicians and power-hungry bureaucrats eager to expand the financial police state, put an end to hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, in the Washington Times column sited above, described the effects of this action on shareholders, “Without the threat of a takeover, manaagers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.” Ironically, the Federal power grab which killed the corporate raider may have set the stage for the Enron debacle, which is now being used as an excuse for yet another Federal power grab!
The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 24:14
Congress should also examine the role the Federal Reserve played in the Enron situation. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet, what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 31:10
At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 42:22
The administration’s proposal would have Minnesota set all this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes sense to me that the states — and not the feds — are in the best position to make those decisions.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY O’NEILL AND FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN
May 31, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 51:2
(Congressman Ron Paul sent this letter to both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank in April. Neither has responded)
The Fed
AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY O’NEILL AND FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN
May 31, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 51:4
I would greatly appreciate an explanation from both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve of the reasons the United States has continued to acquiesce in this misguided policy. Please contact Mr. Norman Singleton, my legislative director, if you require any further information regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 52:9
Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year’s record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned.
The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 52:11
Now it is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve’s mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system.
The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 52:12
Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 62:2
H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated 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 nation governed mainly from Washington.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 4954 or the alternative allow seniors the ability to control their own health care. Instead both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine what prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. The only difference is that alternative puts seniors under the control of the federal bureaucy, while H.R. 4954 gives this power to “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:10
Medicare MSAs will also ensure senior access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:24
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:25
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.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:26
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.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:28
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.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:30
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.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:100
- The federalization of all airline security employees.
The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:107
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:14
Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.
The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:15
But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.
The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 66:16
So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related 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.
The Fed
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 70:6
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
The Fed
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 71:2
"I have for quite a few years now expressed concern about the value of the dollar which I think we neglect here in the Congress, here in the committee and I do not think that the Federal Reserve has done a good job in protecting the value of the dollar. And it seems that maybe others are coming around to this viewpoint because I see that the head of the IMF this week, Mr. Koehler has expressed a concern and made a suggestion that all the central bankers of the world need to lay plans in the near future to possibly prop up the dollar. So others have this same concern.
The Fed
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 71:3
"You have in your testimony expressed concern about the greed factor which obviously is there. And you implied that this has come out from the excessive capitalization/excessive valuations, which may be true. But I believe where you have come up short is in failing to explain why we have financial bubbles. I think when you have fiat money and excessive credit you create financial bubbles and you also undermine the value of the dollar and now we are facing that consequence. We see the disintegration of some of these markets. At the same time we have potential real depreciation of the value of our dollar. And we have pursued rampant inflation of the money supply. Since you have been Chairman of the Federal Reserve we have literally created $4.7 trillion worth of new money in M-3. Even in this last year with this tremendous burst of inflation of the money supply has gone up since last January over $1 trillion. You can’t have anything but lower value of that unit of account if you keep printing and creating new money.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:7
The metaphorical drinking age is set by — and periodically changed by — the Federal Reserve. In our Fed-centric mixed economy, the understanding that “the Fed sets interest rates” has become widely accepted as a simple institutional fact. But unlike an actual drinking age, which has an inherent degree of arbitrariness about it, the interest rate cannot simply be “set” by some extramarket authority. With market forces in play, it has a life of its own.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:10
But the Fed can do more than simply impose a ceiling on credit markets. Setting the interest rate below where the market would have it is accomplished not by decree but by increasing the money supply, temporarily masking the discrepancy between supply and demand. This papering over of the credit shortage hides a problem that would otherwise be obvious, allowing it to fester beneath a binge of investment spending.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:13
In recent years money-supply figures have become clouded by institutional and technological change. But in our view, a tale-telling pattern is traced out by the MZM data reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. ZM standing for “zero maturity,” this monetary aggregate is a better indicator of credit conditions than are the more narrowly defined M’s.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:15
Sean Corrigan, a principal in Capital Insight, a UK-based financial consultancy, has recently detailed the consequences of the expansion that came in “. . . autumn 1998, when the world economy, still racked by the problems of the Asian credit bust over the preceding year, then had to cope with the Russian default and the implosion of the mighty Long-Term Capital Management.” Corrigan goes on: “Over the next eighteen months, the Fed added $55 billion to its portfolio of Treasuries and swelled repos held from $6.5 billion to $22 billion . . . [T]his translated into a combined money market mutual fund and commercial bank asset increase of $870 billion to the market peak, of $1.2 trillion to the industrial production peak, and of $1.8 trillion to date — twice the level of real GDP added in the same interval” (http://www.mises.org/ fullarticle.asp?control=754).
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:16
The party was in full swing, and the Fed kept the good times rolling by cutting the fed funds rate a whole basis point between June 1998 and January 1999. The rate on 30- year Treasuries dropped from a high of over 7% to a low of 5%. Stock markets soared. The NASDAQ composite went from just over 1000 to over 5000 during the period, rising over 80% in 1999 alone. With abundant credit being freely served to Internet start-ups, hordes of corporate managers, who had seemed married to their stodgy blue-chip companies, suddenly were romancing some sexy dot-com that had just joined the party.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:20
During the first half of 2001, the Fed demonstrated — with its half-dozen interest-rate cuts and a near-desperate MZM growth of over 23% — that you can’t recreate euphoria in the midst of a hangover.
The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices 2002 Ron Paul 78:22
“We are not in the midst of a financial panic, and recovery isn’t simply a matter of restoring confidence. Indeed, excessive confidence [fostered by unduly low interest rates maintained by rapid monetary growth? — RG & GC] may be part of the problem. Instead of being the victims of self-fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism. The driving force behind the current slowdown is a plunge in business investment. It now seems clear that over the last few years businesses spent too much on equipment and software and that they will be cautious about further spending until their excess capacity has been worked off. And the Fed cannot do much to change their minds, since equipment spending [at least when such spending has already proved to be excessive — RG & GC] is not particularly sensitive to interest rates.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002 2002 Ron Paul 80:4
Mr. Speaker, I come from a Coastal District in Texas. The Coast Guard and its mission are important to us. The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Coast Guard has expressed strong reservations about the plan to move the Coast Guard into the new department. Recently my district was hit by the flooding in Texas, and we relied upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to again provide certain services. Additionally, as a district close to our border, much of the casework performed in my district offices relates to requests made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the RECORD.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:2
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:3
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:24
In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 86:28
Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002 2002 Ron Paul 88:4
Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states’ rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 89:13
Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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).
The Fed
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002 2002 Ron Paul 100:2
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Section 7, subsection (b) of the U.N. host country agreement (Establishment of Permanent Headquarters in New York; Agreement Between United Nations and United States; Joint Res. Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 482, 61 Stat. 756) states, in part “the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.” Moreover, as Mawyer states in item #6 on his signed affidavit regarding this incident: “Without asking me to leave, he ordered his security officers, ‘Throw him out of the gates.’ ”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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).
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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:
The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 4:10
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:73
The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate and the cost of living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 12:3
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
The Fed
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003 2003 Ron Paul 12:4
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 13:4
According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 13:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation this provisions have been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals are removed.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 21:4
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.
The Fed
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 21:5
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:7
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s views is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially troubling given that many Americans have lost their jobs, while millions of others have seen severe declines in their net worth, because of the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy. It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need for reform of the system of fiat currency that is responsible for the cycle of booms and busts that plague the American economy. Until this committee addresses those issues, I am afraid the American economy may suffer more recessions or even depressions in the future.
The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:8
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services Committee endorse increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 47:3
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval for the nature of these very suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages form gun violence should be aimed at the perpetrators of those crimes, not the manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by the one who stole the weapon). I fear these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice but by a search for deep pockets, since gun manufactures have higher incomes than the average criminals, and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus strips control over education from local communities and the parents of disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of “Cookie Cutter” approach. In fact, the “Cookie Cutter” approach is especially inappropriate for special needs children.
The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:2
At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill, expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011. After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as much as they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many members’ public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:5
When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too much federal involvement is disabilities education.
The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 52:7
The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.
The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 1 nor the alternative allows seniors the ability to control their own health care. Both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine which prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. Under both plans, federal spending and control over health care will rise dramatically. The only difference is that the alternative puts seniors under the total control of the federal bureaucracy, while H.R. 1 shares this power with “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies. No wonder supporters of nationalized health care are celebrating the greatest expansion of federal control over health care since the Great Society.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:8
This new spending comes on top of recent increases in spending for “homeland security,” foreign aid, federal education programs, and new welfare initiatives, such as those transforming churches into agents of the welfare state. In addition we have launched a seemingly endless program of global reconstruction to spread “democratic capitalism.” The need to limit spending is never seriously discussed: it is simply assumed that Congress can spend whatever it wants and rely on the Federal Reserve to bail us out of trouble. This is a prescription for disaster.
The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:16
Medicare MSAs will also ensure that seniors have access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:3
One reading the COGC proposal cannot help but sense the familiar Washington conceit at work, a conceit that sees America as totally dependent on the workings of Capitol Hill. It is simply unthinkable to many in Washington that the American people might survive a period in which Congress did not pass any new laws. But the truth is that the federal state is not America. The American people have always been remarkably resilient in the face of emergencies, and individual states are far more equipped to deal with emergencies and fill congressional vacancies than COGC imagines.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:79
We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, as detailed in the attached article. GATA alleges that the Treasury, operating through the Exchange- Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, has been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.
The Fed
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.”.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 79:10
The “lunatic fringe” long has argued that the price of gold was being manipulated by a “gold cartel” involving J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, but that the manipulation had been sufficiently exposed to require that it be abandoned, producing the steady upward increase in the price of the shiny, yellow metal.
The Fed
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:3
While fiat money is widely accepted thanks to legal tender laws, it does not maintain its purchasing power. This works to the disadvantage of ordinary people who lose the purchasing power of their savings, pensions, annuities, and other promises of future payment. Most importantly, because of the subsidies our present monetary system provides to banks, which, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated, “induces” the financial sector to increase leverage, the Federal Reserve can create additional money, in Mr. Greenspan’s words, “ without limit .” For this reason, absent legal tender laws, many citizens would refuse to accept fiat irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article “The Greatest Theft in History” by Professor Murray Sabrin, into the RECORD. Professor Sabrin provides an excellent summary of how the Federal Reserve is responsible for the nation’s current economic difficulties.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:3
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:4
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:8
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:15
The FED pumps money into the banking system if it wants to lower interest rates in order “to stimulate” the economy, and conversely will take money out of the banking system if it want to dampen borrowing and “cool off” an overheated economy.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:16
For the past two-and-a-half years the FED has been pumping money into the banking system, driving down short-term interest rates to its current levels, well below the risk free rate. In fact, the American people are being penalized heavily for saving. Real interest rates are negative.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 83:24
After 90 years of manipulating interest rates, it is time to abolish the FED and return the country to the only sound monetary system that is consistent with liberty and prosperity — the gold standard.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 89:5
There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:3
The Founders of this country, and a large majority of the American people up until the 1930s, disdained paper money, respected commodity money, and disapproved of a central bank’s monopoly control of money creation and interest rates. Ironically, it was the abuse of the gold standard, the Fed’s credit-creating habits of the 1920s, and its subsequent mischief in the 1930s, that not only gave us the Great Depression, but also prolonged it. Yet sound money was blamed for all the suffering. That’s why people hardly objected when Roosevelt and his statist friends confiscated gold and radically debased the currency, ushering in the age of worldwide fiat currencies with which the international economy struggles today.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:10
Though the need for sound money is currently not a pressing issue for Congress, it’s something that cannot be ignored because serious economic problems resulting from our paper money system are being forced upon us. As a matter of fact, we deal with the consequences on a daily basis, yet fail to see the connection between our economic problems and the mischief orchestrated by the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
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
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:19
Printing money, which is literally inflation, is nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. It’s unfair and deceptive, and accordingly strongly opposed by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is no authority for Congress, the Federal Reserve, or the executive branch to operate the current system of money we have today. Money As a Political Issue
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:27
The 20 th Century was much less sympathetic to gold. Since 1913 central banking has been accepted in the United States without much debate, despite the many economic and political horrors caused or worsened by the Federal Reserve since its establishment. The ups and downs of the economy have all come as a consequence of Fed policies, from the Great Depression to the horrendous stagflation of the ‘70s, as well as the current ongoing economic crisis.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:29
Look at how the military budget is exploding, deficits are exploding, and tax revenues are going down. No problem; the Fed is there and will print whatever is needed to meet our military commitments, whether it’s wise to do so or not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:32
This is not the kind of interest in the Fed that we need. I’m anticipating that we should and one day will be forced to deal with the definition of the dollar and what money should consist of. The current superficial discussion about money merely shows a desire to tinker with the current system in hopes of improving the deteriorating economy. There will be a point, though, when the tinkering will no longer be of any benefit and even the best advice will be of no value. We have just gone through two-and-a-half years of tinkering with 13 rate cuts, and recovery has not yet been achieved. It’s just possible that we’re much closer than anyone realizes to that day when it will become absolutely necessary to deal with the monetary issue- both philosophically and strategically- and forget about the band-aid approach to the current system. Money as an Economic Issue
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:35
There are also many conservatives who do not endorse central economic planning as those on the left do, but nevertheless concede this authority to the Federal Reserve to manipulate the economy through monetary policy. Only a small group of constitutionalists, libertarians, and Austrian free-market economists reject the notion that central planning, through interest-rate and money-supply manipulation, is a productive endeavor.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:40
But where’s the hitch? This process, which seems to be a creative way of paying off debt, eventually undermines the capitalist structure of the economy, thus making it difficult to produce wealth, and that’s when the whole process comes to an end. This system causes many economic problems, but most of them stem from the Fed’s interference with the market rate of interest that it achieves through credit creation and printing money.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:42
Though generally accepted by most modern economists and politicians, there is little hesitancy in accepting the omnipotent wisdom of the Federal Reserve to know the “price” of money – the interest rate – and its proper supply. For decades, and especially during the 1990s – when Chairman Greenspan was held in such high esteem, and no one dared question his judgment or the wisdom of the system- this process was allowed to run unimpeded by political or market restraints. Just as we must eventually pay for our perpetual deficits, continuous manipulation of interest and credit will also extract a payment.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:43
Artificially low interest rates deceive investors into believing that rates are low because savings are high and represent funds not spent on consumption. When the Fed creates bank deposits out of thin air making loans available at below-market rates, mal-investment and overcapacity results, setting the stage for the next recession or depression. The easy credit policy is welcomed by many: stock-market investors, home builders, home buyers, congressional spendthrifts, bankers, and many other consumers who enjoy borrowing at low rates and not worrying about repayment. However, perpetual good times cannot come from a printing press or easy credit created by a Federal Reserve computer. The piper will demand payment, and the downturn in the business cycle will see to it. The downturn is locked into place by the artificial boom that everyone enjoys, despite the dreams that we have ushered in a “new economic era.” Let there be no doubt: the business cycle, the stagflation, the recessions, the depressions, and the inflations are not a result of capitalism and sound money, but rather are a direct result of paper money and a central bank that is incapable of managing it.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:46
The two conditions that result from fiat money that are more likely to concern the people are inflation of prices and unemployment. Unfortunately, few realize these problems are directly related to our monetary system. Instead of demanding reforms, the chorus from both the right and left is for the Fed to do more of the same- only faster. If our problem stems from easy credit and interest-rate manipulation by the Fed, demanding more will not do much to help. Sadly, it will only make our problems worse.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:50
Although dollar creation is ultimately the key to its value, many other factors play a part in its perceived value, such as: the strength of our economy, our political stability, our military power, the benefit of the dollar being the key reserve currency of the world, and the relative weakness of other nation’s economies and their currencies. For these reasons, the dollar has enjoyed a special place in the world economy. Increases in productivity have also helped to bestow undeserved trust in our economy with consumer prices, to some degree, being held in check and fooling the people, at the urging of the Fed, that “inflation” is not a problem. Trust is an important factor in how the dollar is perceived. Sound money encourages trust, but trust can come from these other sources as well. But when this trust is lost, which always occurs with paper money, the delayed adjustments can hit with a vengeance.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:55
Once this process starts, interest rates will rise. And in recent weeks, despite the frenetic effort of the Fed to keep interest rates low, they are actually rising instead. The official explanation is that this is due to an economic rebound with an increase in demand for loans. Yet a decrease in demand for our debt and reluctance to hold our dollars is a more likely cause. Only time will tell whether the economy rebounds to any significant degree, but one must be aware that rising interest rates and serious price inflation can also reflect a weak dollar and a weak economy. The stagflation of the 1970s baffled many conventional economists, but not the Austrian economists. Many other countries have in the past suffered from the extremes of inflation in an inflationary depression, and we are not immune from that happening here. Our monetary and fiscal policies are actually conducive to such a scenario.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:62
Our current economic problems are directly related to the monetary excesses of three decades and the more recent efforts by the Federal Reserve to thwart the correction that the market is forcing upon us. Since 1998, there has been a sustained attack on corporate profits. Before that, profits and earnings were inflated and fictitious, with WorldCom and Enron being prime examples. In spite of the 13 rate cuts since 2001, economic growth has not been restored.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:69
We are now faced with an economy that is far from robust and may get a lot worse before rebounding. If not now, the time will soon come when the conventional wisdom of the last 90 years, since the Fed was created, will have to be challenged. If the conditions have changed and the routine of fiscal and monetary stimulation don’t work, we better prepare ourselves for the aftermath of a failed dollar system, which will not be limited to the United States.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:70
An interesting headline appeared in the New York Times on July 31, 2003, “Commodity Costs Soar, But Factories Don’t Bustle.” What is observed here is a sea change in attitude by investors shifting their investment funds and speculation into things of real value and out of financial areas, such as stocks and bonds. This shift shows that in spite of the most aggressive Fed policy in history in the past three years, the economy remains sluggish and interest rates are actually rising. What can the Fed do? If this trend continues, there’s little they can do. Not only do I believe this trend will continue, I believe it’s likely to accelerate. This policy plays havoc with our economy; reduces revenues, prompts increases in federal spending, increases in deficits and debt occur, and interest costs rise, compounding our budgetary woes.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:71
The set of circumstances we face today are unique and quite different from all the other recessions the Federal Reserve has had to deal with. Generally, interest rates are raised to slow the economy and dampen price inflation. At the bottom of the cycle interest rates are lowered to stimulate the economy. But this time around, the recession came in spite of huge and significant interest rate reductions by the Fed. This aggressive policy did not prevent the recession as was hoped; so far it has not produced the desired recovery. Now we’re at the bottom of the cycle and interest rates not only can’t be lowered, they are rising. This is a unique and dangerous combination of events. This set of circumstances can only occur with fiat money and indicates that further manipulation of the money supply and interest rates by the Fed will have little if any effect.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 93:85
The panicky effort of the Fed to stimulate economic growth does produce what it considers favorable economic reports, recently citing second quarter growth this year at 3.1%. But in the footnotes, we find that military spending—almost all of which is overseas- was up an astounding 46%. This, of course, represents deficit spending financed by the Federal Reserve’s printing press. In the same quarter, after-tax corporate profits fell 3.4%. This is hardly a reassuring report on the health of our economy and merely reflects the bankruptcy of current economic policy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:4
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. 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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 95:8
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of GSE. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetarize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003 2003 Ron Paul 96:7
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSE’s debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 103:11
Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children’s education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children’s education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 104:2
H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the American people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.
The Fed
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 . . .
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:63
In the old days, they deluded the metal or clipped the coins. Today, it is more sophisticated, because we run up the debt, we send it over to the Fed, and they print the money. But that is debasing the currency, and it undermines the standard of living, already occurring with people on fixed incomes. So it will finally come to a halt, just as our intervention in Vietnam finally came to a sad halt. It did end. But the rest will come to an end when we can no longer afford it.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.
The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 4:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.
The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:15
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s “Views and Estimates” is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially so given the recent decline in the value of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy.
The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:17
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet also supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The report also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps most disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems created by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting increase in private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
We The People Act
4 March 2004 2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.
The Fed
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill
28 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 30:2
Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 39:5
The bill does cut taxes overall, and for that reason I will vote in favor of it. Any legislation that results in less money being sent to the black hole that is the federal Treasury is worth supporting. I especially support the provision that allows Texans (and citizens of other states that do not have an income tax) to deduct state sales taxes, and will vote yes accordingly.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 43:3
Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded “surpluses” of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:9
All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided. The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up. Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money. Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries. No need to soak the rich. A good deal, it seems, for everyone. But is it?
The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:12
The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air. It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation. This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.
The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 52:13
Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 64:2
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 72:3
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, DC’s recent history as the murder capital of the United States. Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the exercise of that right has been most restricted.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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 .
The Fed
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (HR 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will make us less free. HR 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation’s vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:12
Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 2:13
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 reputations as a result of identity theft.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 5:13
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 reputations as a result of identity theft.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 9:4
According to a June 2001 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, and African- Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 9:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the Federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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:
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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
The Fed
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices have used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions, overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most recently, to usurp state authority to decide the age at which criminals becomes subject to the death penalty.
The Fed
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 41:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 62:13
We soon learned of a difference in treatment depending upon residence. In Texas, the legislature had defined attorneys’ fees as belonging to attorneys, and therefore not taxable to plaintiffs. In Maine, no such determination had been made. Also, the Federal District court in which Texas lies had decided that damages were not subject to Alternative Minimum Taxes. The federal court district in which Maine lies had decided the opposite. As a result, the Maine plaintiffs could expect to realize an after-tax net that would have been an estimated 1/15 of the net that the Texas plaintiffs could have expected on the same estimated award. Ironically, all we plaintiffs in our case had been subjected to the exact same set of circumstances; we would have appeared together in the same court; and, if damages were awarded, they would have been determined by the exact same jury.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 70:3
Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the Schedule One definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp, despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:4
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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).
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 98:3
Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. Taxes won’t be raised to pay the bill-- fortunately. There will be no offsets or spending reductions to pay the bill. Welfare and entitlement spending is sacrosanct. Spending for the war in Iraq and the military-industrial complex is sacrosanct. There is no guarantee that gracious foreign lenders will step forward, especially without raising interest rates. This means the Federal Reserve and Treasury will print the money needed to pay the bills. The sad truth is that monetary debasement hurts poor people the most-- the very people we saw on TV after Katrina. Inflating our currency hurts the poor and destroys the middle class, while transferring wealth to the ruling class. This occurs in spite of good intentions and misplaced compassion.
The Fed
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 98:5
Runaway inflation is a well-known phenomenon. It leads to political and economic chaos of the kind we witnessed in New Orleans. Hopefully we’ll come to our senses and not allow that to happen. But we’re vulnerable and we have only ourselves to blame. The flawed paper money system in existence since 1971 has allowed for the irresponsible spending of the past 30 years. Without a linkage to gold, Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve have no restraints placed on their power to devalue our money by merely printing more to pay the bills run up by the welfare-warfare state.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005 2005 Ron Paul 106:7
I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives’ leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for a vote without House members at least having an opportunity to vote on removing the gun control amendments. Instead of voting on a bill that contains the new gun control provisions, we should be considering H.R. 800, the House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun Owners of America has written to House members to request that they oppose S. 397 and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I wrote to House Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, Majority Leader TOM DELAY, and Committee on the Judiciary Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned about some of the federalism implications of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun locks nor restricts gun owners’ ammunition choices.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 108:15
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs’ debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
The Fed
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 64, after line 12, insert the following new section: SECTION 117. ELIMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO BORROW FROM TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. (a) FANNIE MAE. — Section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended by striking subsection (c). (b) FREDDIE MAC. — Section 306 of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1455) is amended by striking subsection (c). (c) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS. — Section 11 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by striking subsection (i). The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005 2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:1
Our country faces major problems. No longer can they remain hidden from the American people. Most Americans are aware the federal budget is in dismal shape. Whether it’s Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the private pension system, most Americans realize we’re in debt over our heads.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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”?
The Fed
Border Protection Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act Of 2005
16 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 127:5
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, H.R. 4437 “treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.”
The Fed
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our country faces major problems. No longer can they remain hidden from the American people. Most Americans are aware the Federal budget is in dismal shape. Whether it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the private pension system, most Americans realize we are in debt over our heads. The welfare state is unmanageable and severely overextended.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:17
This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself. Congress created the Federal Reserve system in 1913. Between then and 1971, the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating an economy with little resistance from Congress while benefiting the special interests that influence Congress.
The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:33
Once again, the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years, the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50 percent. You just cannot fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and the money-creating system of the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:39
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF will surely do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually, they will fail.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:97
But if the Federal Reserve did not pick up the slack and create huge amounts of new credit and money out of thin air, interest rates would rise and call a halt to the charade. The people who suffer from a depreciated dollar don’t understand why they suffer, while the people who benefit promote the corrupt system. The wealthy clean up on Wall Street and the unsophisticated buy in at the market tops. Wealth is transferred from one group to another, and it is all related to the system that allows politicians and the central banks to create money out of thin air. It is literally legalized counterfeiting.
The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:111
Counterfeiting money never creates wealth. It only steals wealth from the unsuspecting. The Federal Reserve creation of money is exactly the same. Increasing the dollars in circulation can only diminish the value of each existing dollar. Only production and jobs can make a country wealthy in the long run. Today, it is obvious our country is becoming poorer and more uneasy as our jobs and capital go overseas.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:9
Two vehicles are used to fund this wild spending. First, the Federal Reserve creates dollars out of thin air and purchases Treasury bills without limit, a very nice convenience.
The Fed
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 6:11
Excessive spending, a rapidly growing national debt, the Federal Reserve inflation machine, and foreign borrowing all put pressure on the dollar. Unless we treat our addiction to debt, it will play havoc with the dollar, undermine our economic well-being, and destroy our liberties. It is time for us to get our house in order.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act, which requires the Federal Reserve to resume reporting the monetary measure known as M3. M3 consists of M1 (M1 is currency in circulation plus travelers’ checks, demand deposits, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts, and similar interest-earning checking account balances) plus M2 (M2 is M1 plus household holdings of savings deposits, small time deposits, and retail money market mutual funds balances except for balances held in IRA and Keogh accounts) plus institutional money market mutual fund balances and managed liabilities of deposits consisting of large time deposits, repurchase agreements, and Eurodollars.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:2
The Federal Reserve Board has recently announced it will stop reporting M3, thus depriving Congress and the American people of the most comprehensive measure of the money supply. The cessation of Federal Reserve’s weekly M3 report will make it more difficult for policymakers, economists, investors, and the general public to learn the true rate of inflation. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously said, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Therefore, having access to a comprehensive measure of the money supply like M3 is a vital tool for those seeking to track inflation. Thorsten Polleit, honorary professor at HfB-Business School of Finance and Management, in his article “Why Money Supply Matters” posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website mises.org, examined the relationship between changes in the money supply and inflation and concluded that “money supply signals might actually be far more important for inflation — even in the short-term — than current central bank practice suggests,” thus demonstrating the importance of the M3 aggregate.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:3
The Federal Reserve Board has claimed neither policymakers nor the Federal Reserve staff closely track M3. Even if M3 is not used by Federal Reserve Board economists or legislators, many financial services professionals whose livelihoods depend on their ability to obtain accurate information about the money supply rely on M3. For example, my office has been contacted by a professional money manger complaining that the Federal Reserve Board’s discontinuing M3 reports will make it difficult for him to do his job.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:4
Whatever lack of interest policymakers are currently displaying in M3 is no doubt related to the mistaken perception that the Federal Reserve Board has finally figured out how to effectively manage a fiat currency. This illusion exists largely because the effects of the Fed’s inflationary polices are concentrated in malinvestments in specific sectors of the economy, leading to “bubbles” such as the one that occurred in the stock market in the late nineties and the bubble that many believe is occurring in the current real estate market. When monetary inflation is reflected in sector- specific bubbles, it is easier to pretend that the bubbles are caused by problems specific to those sectors, instead of reflecting the problems inherent in a fiat currency system. Once the damage to our economy done by our reliance on fiat currency becomes clear, I am certain that policymakers will once again take more interest in M3.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:6
Discontinuing reporting M3 may not be a violation of the letter of the Federal Reserve Board’s statutory duty, but it is a violation of the spirit of the congressional command that the Federal Reserve Board ensure the American public is fully informed about the effects of monetary policy.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 10:7
Mr. Speaker, knowledge of the money supply is one of the keys to understanding the state of the economy. The least the American people should expect from the Federal Reserve Board is complete and accurate information regarding the money supply. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the American people can obtain that information by cosponsoring the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.
The Fed
Opposes Supplemental Spending Bill
15 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 15:6
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to this “emergency” supplemental that reduces some of the non-emergency “emergencies” by $500 million and allocates that money for the recovery of the State of Texas from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, my amendment will take another half-billion dollars from the non-emergency portions of this bill and apply it toward the Federal deficit.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:52
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create new money out of thin air and new credit for buying Treasury bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:20
The number of dollars created by the Federal Reserve and through the fractional reserve banking system is crucial in determining how the market assesses the relationship of the dollar and gold.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:26
There is no single measurement that reveals what the Fed has done in the recent past or tells us exactly what it is about to do in the future. Forget about the lip service given to transparency by the new Fed Chairman Bernanke. Not only is this administration one of the most secretive across the board in our history, the current Fed firmly supports denying the most important measurement of current monetary policy to Congress, the financial community and the American public.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:33
The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock market bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run these courses and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful as was witnessed with the collapse of the NASDAQ bubble. Likewise a fiat monetary system encourages speculation and unsound borrowing.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:38
Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for Federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class or war contracts for the military industrial complex all agree on the so- called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:39
Bankers who benefit from our fractional reserve system likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it is the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. It is true, special interest and bankers do benefit from the Fed and may well get bailed out, just as we saw with the long-term capital management fund crisis a few years ago.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:40
In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to the financial system, cannot be known for sure, but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:65
Since keeping interest rates below market levels is synonymous with new money creation by the Fed, the resulting business cycle, higher cost of living and job losses all can be laid at the doorstep of the Fed. This burden hits the poor the most, making Fed taxation by inflation the worst of all regressive taxes. Statistics about revenues generated by the income tax are grossly misleading. In reality, much harm is done by our welfare-warfare system supposedly designed to help the poor and tax the rich. Only sound money can rectify the blatant injustice of this destructive system.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:67
A recent headline in the financial press announced that gold prices surged over concern that confrontation with Iran will further push oil prices higher. This may well reflect the current situation, but higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:74
Price inflation, with generally rising price levels, is characteristic of paper money. Reports that the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index are rising are distractions. The real cause of inflation is the Fed’s creation of new money.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 23:89
A sharply rising gold price is a vote of no confidence in the Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East.
The Fed
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 32:7
Third, we must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation, by definition, is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keeps interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value.
The Fed
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006 2006 Ron Paul 32:9
Exploding deficits due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of dangerous militarism create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we all claim to oppose. If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand and vote for greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary standard. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended; and, in the meantime, let’s eliminate Federal gas taxes at the pump.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 51:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:28
So we are facing a crisis that is liable to escalate and get out of control in the Middle East. At the same time, it has a bearing on our finances, because when it contributes to the deficit, there is a limit to how much foreigners will loan to us. We have to print the money. We have to go to the Fed, create new money. That is the inflation.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address my concerns with H.R. 5970, a bill to raise the federally mandated minimum wage. Before addressing the substance of this bill, I must address the flaws in the process under which this bill is brought before us. Neither I nor my staff had received any indication the bill before us tonight would be considered by the House until late this afternoon, and the only way a member of the general public could learn about this bill is to look on the Rules Committee website. Therefore, Members of Congress are being asked to vote for a major piece of legislation that was introduced just hours before being voted on the Friday night before Congress adjourns for the month of August.
The Fed
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 73:8
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:81
I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the first amendment, yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influence our policies in the Middle East? It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the First Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the Federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti- Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it is best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006 2006 Ron Paul 100:3
Friedman’s work showed that inflation is not a result of markets but is, as he memorably put it, “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Friedman was the major originator and theoretician of monetarism. Friedman recommended restricting the Federal Reserve’s authority to increasing the quantity of money by a fixed yearly amount. While monetarism is far from the ideal free-market monetary system, Milton Friedman deserves credit for focusing the attention of economists on the Federal Reserve’s responsibility for inflation.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 8:14
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 reputations as a result of identity theft.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 10:6
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 25:3
Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007 2007 Ron Paul 29:4
According to a poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, and African-Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007 2007 Ron Paul 29:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 31:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:1
Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank. Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress-- and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:2
But transparency and oversight are something else, and they’re worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:3
The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions. But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:10
In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:13
For starters, the Federal Reserve should:
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:14
Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:16
Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 32:19
We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007 2007 Ron Paul 38:3
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two- thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I am sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the Federal budget, but that is indeed the case.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:11
The backlash against corporate raiders included the enactment of laws that made it more difficult to launch hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Washington Times in 2001, commented on the effects of these laws, “Without the threat of a takeover, managers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.” The Federal “crackdown” on corporate raiders, combined with provisions in Sarbanes- Oxley disqualifying the people who are the most capable of serving as shareholder watchdogs from serving on corporate boards, contributed to the disconnect between CEO salaries and creation of shareholder value that is being used to justify another expansion of the regulatory state.
The Fed
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007 2007 Ron Paul 43:12
In addition to repealing laws that prevent shareholders from exercising control over corporations, Congress should also examine United States monetary policy’s effects on income inequality. When the Federal Reserve Board injects credit into the economy, the result is at least a temporary rise in incomes. However, those incomes do not rise equally. People who first receive the new credit — who in most instances are those already at the top of the economic pyramid — receive the most benefit from the Fed’s inflationist polices. By the time those at the lower end of the income scale experience a nominal rise in incomes, they must also contend with price inflation that has eroded their standard of living. Except for the lucky few who take advantage of the new credit first, the negative effects of inflation likely more than outweigh any temporary gains in nominal income from the Federal Reserve’s expansionist polices.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the Federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the Federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 52:15
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs’ debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act
6 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sanctity of Life Act. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the Federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. The legislation also clarifies that State and local courts do not have to treat Federal cases overturning State abortion laws as binding precedent.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle-and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:2
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the 70s, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Federal reserve Board Abolition Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 65:6
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act, which requires the Federal Reserve to resume reporting the monetary measure known as M3. M3 consists of M1, M1 is currency in circulation plus travelers’ checks, demand deposits, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal, NOW, accounts, and similar interest-earning checking account balances; M2, M2 is M1 plus household holdings of savings deposits, small time deposits, and retail money market mutual funds balances except for balances held in IRA and Keogh accounts, plus institutional money market mutual fund balances and managed liabilities of deposits consisting of large time deposits, repurchase agreements, and Eurodollars.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:2
The Federal Reserve Board ceased reporting M3 on March 22, 2006, thus depriving Congress and the American people of the most comprehensive measure of the money supply. The cessation of the Federal Reserve’s weekly M3 report will make it more difficult for policymakers, economists, investors, and the general public to learn the true rate of inflation. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously said, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Therefore, having access to a comprehensive measure of the money supply like M3 is a vital tool for those seeking to track inflation. Thorsten Polleit, honorary professor at HfB-Business School of Finance and Management, in his article “Why Money Supply Matters” posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s Web site mises.org, examined the relationship between changes in the money supply and inflation and concluded that “money supply signals might actually be far more important for inflation — even in the short-term — than current central bank practice suggests,” thus demonstrating the importance of the M3 aggregate.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:3
The Federal Reserve Board has claimed neither policymakers nor the Federal Reserve staff closely tracked M3. Even if M3 was not used by Federal Reserve Board economists or legislators, many financial services professionals whose livelihoods depend on their ability to obtain accurate information about the money supply relied on M3. For example, my office has been contacted by a professional money manger complaining that the Federal Reserve Board’s discontinuing M3 reports would make it difficult for him to do his job.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:4
Whatever lack of interest policymakers are currently displaying, in M3 is no doubt related to the mistaken perception that the Federal Reserve Board has finally figured out how to effectively manage a fiat currency. This illusion exists largely because the effects of the Fed’s inflationary polices are concentrated in malinvestments in specific sectors of the economy, leading to “bubbles” such as the one that occurred in the stock market in the late nineties and the bubble that many believe is occurring in the current real estate market. When monetary inflation is reflected in sector- specific bubbles, it is easier to pretend that the bubbles are caused by problems specific to those sectors, instead of reflecting the problems inherent in a fiat currency system. Once the damage to our economy done by our reliance on fiat currency becomes clear, I am certain that policymakers will once again take more interest in M3.
The Fed
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 . . .”
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:6
Discontinuing reporting M3 was only expected to save 0.00000699 percent 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. Discontinuing reporting M3 may not be a violation of the letter of the Federal Reserve Board’s statutory duty, but it is a violation of the spirit of the congressional command that the Federal Reserve Board ensure the American public is fully informed about the effects of monetary policy.
The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
15 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 66:7
Madam Speaker, knowledge of the money supply is one of the keys to understanding the state of the economy. The least the American people should expect from the Federal Reserve Board is complete and accurate information regarding the money supply. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the American people can obtain that information by cosponsoring the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.
The Fed
Remembering Dr. Hans Sennholz
27 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 72:5
I first met Dr. Sennholz in the early 1970s during the campaign to legalize the private ownership of gold. He was a tremendous influence on me and introduced me to other eminent economists of the Austrian School. Dr. Sennholz consistently taught the beneficial effects of the gold standard and was a tireless opponent of inflation. He never ceased to persist in pointing out the problems of fiat currency, the evils of inflation, and the perils of the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee – Humphrey Hawkins Prequel Hearing
17 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 76:1
During the 30 th year of the Humphrey-Hawkins hearings, it would be helpful for Congress to reassess the usefulness of the Humphrey-Hawkins mandate. The dual mandate calls for full employment and stable prices. Humphrey-Hawkins assumes that the Federal Reserve has unique insights into the United States economy that no one else possesses, that the Federal Reserve knows what prices should be and how much unemployment there should be. Full employment which is brought about through rising inflation will eventually lead to a stagnant economy which will lead to more unemployment. 30+ years after the stagflation era, I would hope that Phillips curves are one of those barbarous relics of the past that have been sent to their graves, along with wage and price controls and bans on the private ownership of gold.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Introduction Of The Congressional Responsibility And Accountability Act
2007 Ron Paul 82:3
Congress’s delegation of lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats has created a system that seems to owe more to the writings of Franz Kafka than to the writings of James Madison. The volume of regulations promulgated by federal agencies and the constant introduction of new rules makes it impossible for most Americans to know with any certainty the federal laws, regulations, and rules they are required to obey. Thus, almost all Americans live with the danger that they may be hauled before a federal agency for an infraction they have no reasonable way of knowing is against the law.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.’ ”
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. Chairman, the situation facing us now in the mortgage industry has its roots in the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy. Without addressing the roots of the current crisis, any measures undertaken to improve the situation will be doomed to fail.
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:2
As with asset bubbles and investment manias in past history, the fuel for the current housing bubble had its origins in monetary manipulation. The housing boom was caused by the Federal Reserve's policy resulting in artificially low interest rates. Consumers, misled by low interest rates, were looking to consume, while homebuilders saw the low interest rates as a signal to build, and build they did.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:4
Reduction in the interest rate has two major effects: it encourages consumption over saving; and it makes long-term, capital-intensive projects cheaper to undertake. Under Chairman Greenspan's tenure, the federal funds rate was so low that the real interest rate (that is the nominal interest rate minus inflation) was negative. With a negative real interest rate, someone who saves money will literally lose the value of that money.
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:5
The Federal Reserve continued and still continues to increase the money supply. After ceasing the publication of M3 last February, private economists have calculated that M3 has risen at an annual rate of almost 12%, which is faster than we have seen since the 1970's.
The Fed
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
20 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 93:7
Further regulation of the banking sector, of mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders, or credit rating agencies will fail to improve the current situation, and will do nothing to prevent future real estate bubbles. Any proposed solutions which fail to take into account the economic intervention that laid the ground for the bubble are merely window dressing, and will not ease the suffering of millions of American homeowners. I urge my colleagues to strike at the root of the problem and address the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee
8 November 2007 2007 Ron Paul 103:6
Finally, the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and lowering of interest rates were a major spur to the housing boom. Low interest rates influence marginal buyers, those who are sitting on the fence, and encourage them to take on a mortgage that they otherwise would not. Even when interest rates are raised, no one expects them to stay high for long, as there is always pressure from politicians and investors to keep rates low, as no one wants the cheap credit to end.
The Fed
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
The Fed
Introduction Of Property Tax Deduction For All Act
5 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 105:2
The Property Tax Deduction for All Act will help millions of Americans who struggle with high property taxes, but because they do not itemize, are unable to take advantage of the Federal deduction for property taxes. Extending the property tax deduction to all homeowners will especially benefit senior citizens, whose homes often are the major part of their wealth, and young families struggling to cope with the costs of owning a new home. I respectfully urge my colleagues to help ensure all homeowners can take advantage of the tax deduction for property taxes by cosponsoring this legislation.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Introducing The Free Competition In Currency Act
13 December 2007 2007 Ron Paul 110:3
Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 26, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 8:4
The example of the Soviet Union should have taught us that no one person, no group of people, no matter how scientifically trained, can arbitrarily set prices and not expect economic havoc. Only the spontaneous interaction of market participants can lead to the development of a functioning price system that allows the needs and wants of all participants to be met. The sense I get from reading much of the punditry is that the federal funds rate is set often by the whims of the Federal Reserve governors. Even mechanistic explanations such as the Taylor Rule rely on inputs that are often left up to the discretion of the Fed policymakers: what is the potential GDP, do we use CPI or PCE, overall CPI versus CPI less energy and food, etc.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
“Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
February 27, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 9:6
Many market actors therefore continue to undertake risky investments and expect that in the future, if their investments go south, that the Fed would and should intervene by creating more money and credit. The result of these bailouts is that each successive recession runs the risk of becoming larger and more severe, requiring a stronger reaction by the Fed. Eventually, however, the Fed begins to run out of room in which to maneuver, a problem we are facing today.
The Fed
Statement on Coinage
March 11, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 12:4
Congress’ unconstitutional delegation of monetary policy to the Federal Reserve and its reluctance to exercise oversight in that arena have led to a massive devaluation of the dollar. If we fail to end this devaluation, we will undoubtedly hold future hearings as the metal value of our coins continues to outstrip the face value.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Hearing on “The Economic Outlook”
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 18:3
What we in Washington should be discussing is increased regulation and scrutiny of public sector regulatory and oversight agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the SEC, and others. The Federal Reserve’s actions got us into at least one depression in the last century, and have led to continued cyclical difficulties, including the current economic slowdown.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:12
There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.
The Fed
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:13
By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.
The Fed
Statement: “Something Big is Happening”
9 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 42:19
This time — since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved — the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history’s greatest.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
UNTITLED
23 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had had a chance to name this bill, I might have suggested that we could call it the mother of all bailouts. But on second thought I decided that wouldn’t be appropriate because it isn’t nearly as big as the bailout that the Federal Reserve has been engaged in in this very industry.
The Fed
UNTITLED
23 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 47:2
The Federal Reserve has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars, probably close to $300 billion to bail out this industry. And of course the Fed has no money. But when we open the doors in an unlimited amount, and no restraint on what the Treasury might do in buying up these securities, we have to talk about the budget. And, of course, that is why this bill increases the national debt by $800 billion, so I guess they are expecting to buy a whole lot of mortgage securities. But that won’t solve the problem. We have to find out why this problem has existed.
The Fed
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:3
HR 3221 also takes another troubling step toward the creation of surveillance state by creating a Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This federal database will contain personal information about anyone wishing to work as a “loan originator.” “Loan originator“ is defined broadly as anyone who ”takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.“ According to some analysts, this definition is so broad as to cover part-time clerks and real estate agents who receive even minimal compensation from ”originators.“ Additionally, this database forced on industry will be funded by fees paid to the federal banking agencies, yet another costly burden to the American taxpayers.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:5
Finally, HR 3221 increases the federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raise of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee-jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.
The Fed
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 .
The Fed
Full Committee Hearing on “Implications of a Weaker Dollar for Oil Prices and the U.S. Economy”
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 50:4
Because no one understands that inflation is growth in the monetary supply, no one is able to combat it effectively. We hear all sorts of hand-wringing about increasing inflation, and all sorts of explanations about how rising oil and food prices will make inflation worse. At the same time, the fact that MZM, the closest approximation to total money supply that still is reported by the Fed, is still rising by almost 15% per year and that M2 is rising significantly as well is quietly ignored. The pundits have causation backwards, it is inflation that leads to rising prices of oil and food, and not vice versa.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:3
H.R. 3221 also takes another troubling step toward the creation of surveillance state by creating a Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This Federal database will contain personal information about anyone wishing to work as a “loan originator.” “Loan originator” is defined broadly as anyone who “takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.” According to some analysts, this definition is so broad as to cover part-time clerks and real estate agents who receive even minimal compensation from “originators.” Additionally, this database forced on industry will be funded by fees paid to the Federal banking agencies, yet another costly burden to the American taxpayers.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:5
Finally, H.R. 3221 increases the Federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raise of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the PATRIOT Act and Sarbanes- Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee- jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is only going to make the problem that much worse. The problem came about because we spent too much; we borrowed too much, and we printed too much money; we inflated too much, and we overregulated. This is all that this bill is about is more of the same. So you can’t solve the problem. We are looking at a symptom. We are looking at the collapsing of a market that was unstable. It was unstable because of the way it came about. It came about because of a monopoly control of money and credit by the Federal Reserve System, and that is a natural consequence of what happens when a Federal Reserve System creates too much credit.
The Fed
“The Bailout”
September 29, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 65:5
We need to get our house in order. We need more oversight—that is a certainty —but we need oversight of the Federal Reserve System, of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. Find out what they’re doing. How much have they been meddling in the market?
The Fed
“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.
The Fed
Statement on HR 1424
October 3, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 67:2
The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into US and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
UNTITLED
3 October 2008 2008 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill because it won’t solve our problem. It is said that we are in a liquidity crisis and a credit crunch and all we need is more credit. The Federal Reserve has already injected over a trillion dollars worth of credit and it doesn’t seem to have helped a whole lot. Injecting another 600 to $700 billion will not solve the problem.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
UNTITLED
3 October 2008 2008 Ron Paul 68:6
This idea that there is not enough regulation is completely wrong. There is too much regulation, and lack of regulation of the Federal Reserve system and the exchange of stabilization.
The Fed
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:4
At least 90% of the cause for the financial crisis can be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. It is the manipulation of credit, the money supply, and interest rates that caused the various bubbles to form. Congress added fuel to the fire by various programs and institutions like the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FDIC, and HUD mandates, which were all backed up by aggressive court rulings.
The Fed
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:5
The Fed has now doled out close to $2 trillion in subsidized loans to troubled banks and other financial institutions. The Federal Reserve and Treasury constantly brag about the need for “transparency” and “oversight,” but it’s all just talk — they want none of it. They want secrecy while the privileged are rescued at the expense of the middle class.
The Fed
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:6
It is unimaginable that Congress could be so derelict in its duty. It does nothing but condone the arrogance of the Fed in its refusal to tell us where the $2 trillion has gone. All Members of Congress and all Americans should be outraged that conditions could deteriorate to this degree. It’s no wonder that a large and growing number of Americans are now demanding an end to the Fed.
The Fed
The Austrians Are Right
November 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 71:7
The Federal Reserve created our problem, yet it manages to gain even more power in the socialization of the entire financial system. The whole bailout process this past year was characterized by no oversight, no limits, no concerns, no understanding, and no common sense.
The Fed
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 72:5
The big thing is the big bailout, the $8 trillion, the unlimited amount the Federal Reserve has invested and what we’ve been doing for the past 6 months. We are on the road to nationalization. In many ways, we’re in the midst of nationalization without a whimper.
The Fed
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:4
The Federal Reserve has literally created over $2 trillion here in the last several months, at least in obligations, and that is outside the realm of the Congress. We don’t even audit the Federal Reserve. They create this money, and when the Fed Chairman comes before our committee and we ask, well, where did you dispose of this $2 trillion that you have created recently, he says well, it is not your business. That is not necessary. Under the law, he doesn’t even have to tell us.
The Fed
UNTITLED
10 December 2008 2008 Ron Paul 73:6
We are dealing with only finding victims. We cannot get rid of the debt, whether it is our national debt or whether it is corporate debt, but we have to put it on somebody else. We need to look at the cause of these bubbles, and it has to do with monetary policy and the Federal Reserve system.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 4:14
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 reputations as a result of identity theft.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Bailout
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 8:2
There has been a lot of money involved and a lot of money spent. There have been appropriations that we’ve made here in the Congress as well as the trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve has used to try to bail out the financial industry, and nothing seems to be working.
The Fed
Bailout
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 8:7
That contributes to what we call “moral hazard” as well as the system of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac system. It always had a line of credit. It never had to use it, but the assumption was, if we ever got into any trouble, the Treasury would be there, and the Federal Reserve would back them up. That existed for a long time, causing specifically the housing bubble to develop.
The Fed
INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE
January 14, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the Federal judiciary.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
LIVING BENEATH OUR MEANS
January 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 10:9
This crisis we’re in is destined to get much worse because the real cause is not acknowledged. Not only are the corrections delayed and distorted, additional problems are yet to be dealt with – the commercial property bubble, the insolvent retirement funds, both private and public, state finances, and the university trust funds. For all these problems, only massive currency inflation is offered by the Fed. The real concern ought to be for a dollar crisis, which will come if we don’t change our ways.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:2
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLITION ACT
February 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 14:6
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE CULPRIT
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve is the culprit; it has delivered this crisis to us. The Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is a big mistake; it is not a panacea.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE CULPRIT
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 17:5
Ironically, free markets and sound money generates low rates, but unlike the artificially low rates orchestrated by the Fed, the information conveyed is beneficial to investors and savers.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE CULPRIT
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 17:6
The Congress, by conceding this authority, conveys extraordinary economic powers to the elite few. This is a power that has been abused throughout history. Only the Federal Reserve can inflate the currency, creating new money and credit out of thin area, in secrecy, without oversight or supervision.
The Fed
FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE CULPRIT
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 17:12
Inflation has been used to pay for all the wars and empires, and they all end badly. Inflationism and corporatism engenders protectionism and trade wars. It prompts scapegoating; blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that results. Besides, the whole process is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority to operate such a monetary system. So let’s stop it. Let us restore a policy of prosperity, peace and liberty. The time has come. Let’s end the Fed.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Humphrey-Hawkins Hearing Statement
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 18:4
When banking giants are reimbursed for their losses through redistribution of taxpayer money, what lesson do we expect them to learn? Can anyone in Washington say with a straight face that these banks will shape up their business practices when they are almost guaranteed billions of dollars in taxpayer funds? Even if this does provide a temporary lifeline, it only delays the inevitable collapse of a banking system built on an unsustainable model. Fractional-reserve banking is completely dependent on faith in the banks’ abilities to repay depositors, and when that ability is thrown into doubt, the house of cards comes crashing down. The Federal Reserve may be able to manage public confidence, but confidence only goes so far. When banks are required to hold a maximum of ten percent of their deposits on reserve, the system is fundamentally insolvent. Such a system cannot be propped up or bailed out, except at the cost of massive creation of money and credit, which would result in a hyperinflation that would completely destroy our economy.
The Fed
Humphrey-Hawkins Hearing Statement
February 25, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 18:5
Chairman Bernanke and others in positions of authority seem to gloss over these systemic instabilities and assume an excessively rosy outlook on the economy. I believe we are at another major economic crossroad, where the global financial system will have to be fundamentally rethought. The post-Bretton Woods dollar standard system has proven remarkably resilient, lasting longer than the gold-exchange system which preceded it, but the current economic crisis has illustrated the unsustainability of the current dollar-based system. To think that the economy will begin to recover by the end of this year is absurd. The dollar’s supposed strength exists only because of the weakness of other currencies. The Fed’s increase of the monetary base and establishment of “temporary” funding facilities has set the stage for hyperinflation, and it remains to be seen what results.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near- complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:2
Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:5
More importantly, the Fed’s funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury’s supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act
February 26, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 20:6
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much- needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:11
Ultimately, where we really need some supervision and some earmarks are the trillions of dollars spent by the Federal Reserve. They get to create their money out of thin air, and spend it. They have no responsibility to tell us anything. Under the law, they are excluded from telling us where and what they do.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:12
So, we neglect telling the Treasury how to spend TARP money, and then we complain about how they do it. But just think literally; the Treasury is miniscule compared to what the Federal Reserve does.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:13
The Treasury gets hundreds of billions, which is huge, of course, and then we neglect to talk about the Federal Reserve, where they are creating money out of thin air, and supporting all their friends and taking care of certain banks and certain corporations. This, to me, has to be addressed.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:14
I have introduced a bill, it’s called H.R. 1207, and this would remove the restriction on us to find out what the Federal Reserve is doing. Today, the Federal Reserve under the law is not required to tell us anything. So all my bill does is remove this restriction and say, Look, Federal Reserve, you have a lot of power. You have too much power. You’re spending a lot of money. You’re taking care of people that we have no idea what you’re doing. We, in the Congress, have a responsibility to know exactly what you’re doing.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:15
This bill, H.R. 1207, will allow us for once and for all to have some supervision of the Federal Reserve. They are exempt from telling us anything, and they have stiffed us already. There have been lawsuits filed over the Freedom of Information Act. Believe me, they are not going to work, because the law protects the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
EARMARKS
March 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 24:16
The Constitution doesn’t protect the Federal Reserve. The Constitution protects the people to know exactly what is going on. We should enforce the Constitution. We should not enforce these laws that protect a secret bank that gets to create this money out of thin air.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Blame Congress For Results
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 34:3
Yesterday, for instance, the Federal Reserve met and they came out and announced that they would create new money to the tune of $1.25 trillion. The dollar promptly went down 3 percent, and today it went down another 1.5 percent. And today on emergency legislation, we’re going to deal with $165 million worth of bonuses, which obviously should have never been given. But who’s responsible for this? It’s the Congress and the President, who signed this.
The Fed
Blame Congress For Results
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 34:4
So this is a distraction. This is an outrage so everybody can go home that voted for this bill and say, look, I am clamping down on this $165 million but I don’t care about the previous $5 trillion the Fed created and the $1.25 trillion they created yesterday.
The Fed
Blame Congress For Results
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 34:7
If you really want to do something, you ought to consider H.R. 1207, which would monitor and make the Fed answer questions. I understand the Fed and the Treasury were involved in a lot of these antics, and yet the Fed is not even required to answer any questions.
The Fed
Blame Congress For Results
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 34:8
So it’s about time we have an open book about the Federal Reserve and solve some of these problems.
The Fed
Blame Congress For Bonuses
March 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 35:4
The real outrage, I think, is the lack of monitoring of what we do; we give out money, we have no strings attached, we give out hundreds of billions of dollars, and we totally ignore what the Federal Reserve does by issuing literally trillions of dollars. And yet, this is the emergency legislation.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:7
If we understood the tenth amendment, we wouldn’t be doing all of this. We wouldn’t have a deficit. If we understood monetary policy, we wouldn’t have a monetary system that encourages all of this that gets us off the hook because conservatives like to spend a lot of money, and liberals like to spend a lot of money. And they don’t have to worry. We raise taxes. We borrow it. And we do it, and we’ve been doing it for decades and getting away with it. But it’s coming to an end because we’ve always been dependent on the Fed to come in and monetize the debt.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:12
Now, if an individual or a company goes into debt, it can be liquidated in the old-fashioned way of bankruptcies. Countries don’t go bankrupt. What they do is they default on a debt. That doesn’t mean they won’t pay it. They pay it off in bad money. And literally, that is the purpose of the Federal Reserve right now is to lower the real debt. So if you destroy 50 percent of the value of the dollar in the next year or two, the real debt has gone down 50 percent.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Monetizes Debt
April 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 41:13
Literally, the Federal Reserve board is praying for, encouraging inflation to lower the real debt because it can’t be sustained.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 43:4
According to a survey conducted by Education Next/Harvard PEPG, the majority of Americans support education tax credits. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, African- Americans, and public-school employees. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.
The Fed
FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 43:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INDUSTRIAL HEMP FARMING ACT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 44:3
Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food. The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
TRIBUTE TO BURT BLUMERT
April 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 49:2
As the founder and manager of Camino Coins in Burlingame, CA, Burt was one of the nation’s leading dealers in gold and silver coins. A student of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, Burt understood the important role precious metals played in protecting ordinary citizens from the damage wrought by fiat money and inflation. Thus, he regarded his work as a coin dealer not just as a business, but as an opportunity to help people by providing with some protection from the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT
May 20, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn.
The Fed
INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT
May 20, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 57:2
However, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion. Even some intellectually honest supporters of legalized abortion acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCING THE PROTECT PATIENTS’ AND PHYSICIANS’ PRIVACY ACT
May 21, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 59:2
Congress has refused to fund the development of a unique health identifier every year since 1998. Clearly, the majority of my colleagues recognize the threat this scheme poses to medical privacy. It is past time for Congress to repeal the section of law authorizing the Federal unique health identifier.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
MISTAKES: JUST A FEW!
June 3, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 63:4
A massive single-year debt increase of $2 trillion and a $9 trillion stimulus by Congress and the Federal Reserve verges on madness.
The Fed
COMMUNITIES REBUILD AFTER HURRICANE IKE
July 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 79:25
STRONG RELATIONSHIPS Those who didn’t have strong relationships with their bankers were left waiting for help from the Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Pierson said.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 86:3
Congress’s delegation of law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats has created a system that seems to owe more to the writings of Franz Kafka than to the writings of James Madison. The volume of regulations promulgated by federal agencies and the constant introduction of new rules makes it impossible for most Americans to know with any certainty the federal laws, regulations, and rules they are required to obey. Thus, almost all Americans live with the danger that they may be hauled before a federal agency for an infraction they have no reasonable way of knowing is against the law.
The Fed
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: “Transparency is okay – except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.”
The Fed
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:2
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argues that H.R. 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain “independent,” that is, secret. He ignores history, because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the President with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:5
Fed sychophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial market’s faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history, brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14, 2007, that “a considerable amount of evidence indicates that central bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance.”
The Fed
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:6
They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96 percent. They claim H.R. 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter; and besides, Congress likes low interest rates. It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future, and, again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.
The Fed
THE BIG GUNS HAVE LINED UP AGAINST H.R. 1207
July 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 88:7
Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Street are the opponents of 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the “public’s” interest? The real question is, why are Wall Street and the Feds so hysterically opposed to 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke does not want us to know any the details of the Fed’s secret operations. This position is not surprising and has been typical of all central bank chairmen. Bernanke’s stated goal is “to design a system of financial oversight that will provide a robust framework for preventing future crises.”
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:2
During its 96 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has played havoc with our economy and brought great suffering to millions through unemployment and price escalation. And it has achieved what only a central bank can: A steady depreciation of our currency. Today’s dollar is now worth 4 cents, compared to the dollar entrusted to the Federal Reserve in 1913. Ninety-six years should have been plenty of time for the Fed to come up with a plan for preventing economic crises.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:3
Since the Fed is the source of all economic downturns, it’s impossible for any central banker to regulate in such a manner to prevent the problems that are predictable consequences of his own monetary management. The Federal Reserve fixes interest rates at levels inevitably lower than those demanded by the market. This manipulation is a form of price control through credit expansion, and is the ultimate cause of business cycles and so many of our economic problems, generating the mal- investment, excessive debt, stock, bond, commodity, and housing bubbles.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:5
The Fed has clearly failed on its mandate to maintain full employment and price stability. It’s time to find out what’s going on. Instead of assuming responsibility for the Fed’s role in the crisis, Bernanke brags about, “arresting” the crisis.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:6
I would suggest to Mr. Bernanke that it’s too early to brag. Bernanke decries any effort to gain transparency of the Fed’s actions to find out just who gets bailed out and who is left to fail. Instead, he proposes giving even more power to the Fed to regulate the entire financial system.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:7
What he does not recognize – nor does he want to admit – is that he is talking about symptoms while ignoring the source of the crisis: the Federal Reserve itself. More regulations will never compensate for all the distortion and excesses caused by monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates. Regulation distracts from the real cause while further interfering with the market forces, thus guaranteeing that the recession will become much deeper and prolonged.
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:8
Chairman Bernanke’s argument for Fed secrecy is a red herring. It serves to distract so the special interests that benefit from the Fed policy never become known to the public. Who can possibly buy this argument that this secrecy is required to protect the people from political influence?
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:9
My bill, H.R. 1207, has nothing to do with interference with monetary policy. This was explicitly stated in the amendment voted on in the Financial Services Committee. Bernanke’s argument for protecting the independence of the Fed is his argument for protecting the secrecy of the Fed. Chairman Bernanke concludes that “America needs a strong” – think cartel – “nonpolitical” – think Goldman Sachs – “and independent” – think secret – “central bank with the tools to promote financial stability, in the midst of a horrendous financial crisis, and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation.”
The Fed
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
December 1, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 100:10
This belief is a dream that one day will become a nightmare for all Americans unless we come to our senses, stop our wild spending, runaway deficits, printing press money, massive bureaucratic regulations, and our unnecessary world empire. A crucial step towards fixing these problems will be transparency of the Federal Reserve.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake
20 February 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
Some politicians realized that there is a lot of money sitting in those accounts - more than hundreds of billions of dollars, in fact. And the same politicians realized the federal deficit was growing by even larger sums of money thanks to unconstitutional spending at home, nation-building abroad, corporate welfare for big political donors, and pork projects.
The Fed
- Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake
20 February 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
Take the Highway Trust Fund. Last year the fund brought in close to $26 billion from gas taxes (except for President Clinton's 4.3 cent tax increase of 1993, which goes to the general fund - a whole different discussion). The trust fund spent almost $24 billion on highway-building and related projects. The remainder? Well, according to the bean counters, it was "invested" in Treasury notes, which are now held as an "asset." What does that really mean? It means $2 billion, which could have been used to build the new I-69 or some other highway project, went instead to "cut the federal debt."
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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."
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- Parents must have control of education
20 July 1997 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
So the real challenge for us is determining how to rescue our school kids from the clutches of the federal education bureaucrats.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve
15 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Another part of this vital process is opening the debates. So the second piece of legislation I am putting forward is the Debate Freedom Act of 1997. As you probably know, candidates for president can chose to accept federal funds if they meet certain private-fundraising criteria. I believe it is completely unconstitutional for taxpayers to be forced to subsidize any candidates, and especially those with whom they disagree; but if the candidates are going to get our money, then I propose we be able to set some ground-rules to get a better range of debate on the issues. My legislation simply requires that if a candidate accepts the federal funding for his or her election, then that candidate can only participate in debates to which all candidates who qualify for federal funding - whether they take it or not - are invited to participate. This doesn't force anyone to take taxpayer money, nor does it force them to give it up. If someone doesn't like the strings that come with taking our money, then they don't have to take it. But if a candidate does take the taxpayers' money, then the candidate will either have to participate in debates open to everyone who qualifies, or be forced to give up their federal funding.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead
17 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Second, the fast-track backers claimed to be the defenders of free-trade, yet they have no history of ever promoting free market economics and sound money. Instead they prefer to manage a welfare state and use the mechanisms of the Export-Import Bank, the World Bank, foreign aid, and the federal reserve system to benefit their corporate friends.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
Has this Congress, in 1997 - three years after the so-called "Conservative revolution" - done anything to cut the spending and cut the number of unconstitutional agencies? No, not a one. Perhaps it would not have been so bad if Congress only had moved to stop the growth of these agencies, if it was not going to all-out abolish them. But this Congress has increased the funding for almost all of the federal boondoggles; the pornographic National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of (mis)Education, and the bureaucrats at the EPA, all saw budget increases.
The Fed
- Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government
01 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Even worse, Congress gave more money to the IRS - the most corrupt and hated of the federal agencies - than that organization has ever received. Americans say they want to get rid of the IRS, but the Republican Congress has given the IRS money to do more of their same old tricks. In fact, the Congress gave the IRS more than $700 million over last year! Sure, there have been some gentle slaps at the agency with legislation, but nothing extraordinary.
The Fed
- 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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 7 ... Cached
Further, the federal stranglehold on education has all but removed parents from being active participants in their child's education. Not because the parents want it that way, or because the teachers want it that way, but because East Coast college professors, who have more degree than experience in the elementary classroom, see parental involvement as an obstacle and impediment to their political power and agenda.
The Fed
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."
The Fed
National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved
09 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
So when legislation came up to prevent the Clinton Administration from implementing these national tests, I was ready to cast a vote for the Constitution and for American education. But as the process advanced it became abundantly clear that the real motivation of those pushing the legislation had less to do with a philosophic opposition to the federal stranglehold on education and testing, but rather a partisan desire to oppose a test created by this president. The legislation which passed Congress prevents a president from arbitrarily instituting a national standards test. The president can get a national test if he really wants one, he just has to get the approval of Congress first.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Block grants are not the answer
09 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 4 ... Cached
Block grants have become a popular rhetorical device, holding out the promise of restoring local control to lessen the Federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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..
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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. "
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution
18 May 1998 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
And the federalization of every problem takes us further and further from the Constitution, and liberty.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Campaign reform should encourage choice
15 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
The Debate Freedom Act of 1997 expands the opportunity for political debate and discourse by requiring recipients of federal matching campaign funds (currently available only for Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns) to agree in writing not to participate in debates to which every other candidate for that office whom either qualifies for federal funds or is on the ballot in a minimum of 40 states, are not invited. If the candidate violates the agreement, they lose the federal matching funds.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Paul legislation will stop national ID card
13 July 1998 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 6 ... Cached
Under the current state of the law, the citizens of states which have drivers' licenses that do not conform to the federal standards by October 1, 2000, will find themselves essentially stripped of their ability to participate in life as we know it. On that date, Americans will not be able to get a job, open a bank account, apply for Social Security or Medicare, exercise their Second Amendment rights, or even take an airplane flight, unless they can produce a state-issued ID that conforms to the federal specifications. Further, under the terms of the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health-care law, Americans may be forced to present this federally-approved drivers' license before consulting a physician for medical treatment!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Discussions of a powerful man using influence in an attempt to secure employment for his much-younger mistress, while disgraceful and shameful, pale in comparison to the abuse of power in accessing hundreds of confidential files on private citizens and political opponents. It is disturbing that under this president's watch, at least 900 files from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, detailing the intimate details uncovered for security background checks, were found to have been illegally transferred to the White House.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The problem is the currency
21 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Let there be no doubt about it. The good times came with generous credit creation and low interest rates and the Fed will yield to the politicians' pressure to continue the process. Turning off the money spigot, and allowing the market to work will never be seriously considered.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching
30 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Despite the warm and fuzzy name, the federal regulators are not interested in the banks "getting to know their customers." Their only interest is in monitoring and controlling every aspect of life, so they can create the illusion of phantom crimes, and therefore justify their existence. With complex laws and unimaginably obscure regulations, the cards are stacked against everyone, ensuring that at any moment, the IRS or other agency can nail anyone for something.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Medical costs can be cut with freedom
14 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
What the politicians and their bureaucrats refuse to acknowledge is that the cost of routine health care is spiraling out of control precisely because of the federal involvement.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal government needs to step out of education
04 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
For twenty years, our nation's schools have been in decline, but not because our kids are less intelligent or our teachers less capable. The problem has been the people running the programs; not the principals or superintendents, but the federal regulations that trickle down through various levels of various bureaucracies.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A New Pandora's Box
25 January 1999 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The president and congress have for several years been bragging about great budget surpluses, and, of course, the outlandish claim that the budget is balanced. The federal debt is continuing to rise, by more than $100 billion a year. It is impossible for the budget to be truly balanced while debt continues to rise unless the president has different understanding of the meaning of the word "balanced" than most Americans.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Big Lie
22 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
The budget surplus is a shameful sham; it is the product of the wishful thinking and convoluted pseudo-math that is the federal budget process. There is no budget surplus. In fact, not only is there no surplus, but the national debt is actually continuing to increase. It will be increasing this year, and next year, and the next year, and on.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Victory should be call to action
08 March 1999 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 7 ... Cached
More than 140,000 people wrote in opposition to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and the other agencies promulgating these regulations. Those same agencies -- with no small degree of bewilderment -- recorded less than 100 comments in support of the massive privacy grab.
The Fed
Get to know your banker
12 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
The financial regulatory agencies have for some time "recommended" that banks have "Know Your Customer" procedures in place. Those "recommendations," while not required, are often perceived as an unspoken threat of the federal regulators. Banks rely on the regulators to give them a clean bill of health, or face shut down. One person I know in the industry said it is well understood that if a bank doesn't follow the "recommendations," then the agencies will make sure they find some mistake, somewhere, no matter how small, and earn them heavy fines. In other words: do what we want and bank examiners will go easy. Many banks have given in, though some have not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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."
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Going from bad to worse
17 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Second, as experience has shown, federal "solutions" tend to dumb down a process, rather than encourage excellence. One need look only at that state of our schools to see the most practical example of that premise. In the arena of law, one can examine the results of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which took abortion law out of the purview of the states and gave it to the federal courts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Tragedy begets tragedy
14 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 14 June 1999 verse 10 ... Cached
Very soon, Congress will take up HR 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act. The measure not only continues the federalization of law enforcement, it undermines the Bill of Rights. While our founding fathers wisely left the enforcement of crime to local and state leaders, federal legislators assume they are wiser not only than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, but everyone not in DC.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?"
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Regulating gridiron prayer
13 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 September 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
With the start of high school football season in the 14th Congressional District, many of my constituents are upset by the fact that a long-held tradition has been taken from them by the federal courts.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Punishing accidents, ignoring murder
20 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Setting aside those constitutional questions -- which Congress should never do, but regularly does -- it would seem to finally offer some recognition, at the federal level, that the child in the womb is indeed a human being worthy of protection. Backers of the bill say that it will offer legal protection to the fetus from those who attack it; that is, unless the attacker happens to be an abortionist or the mother. That's the part of the bill being kept quiet.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
'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.
The Fed
'Say no to high taxes and spending'
27 September 1999 Texas Straight Talk 27 September 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
No word better describes the problem in getting even a modest tax cut in place for taxpayers across the land than the five-letter, one-syllable word "spend." Whether it’s congressmen or presidents, bureaucrats or special interests, everyone with a hand in crafting the federal budget is committed to spending as much of your money as they can to fund pet projects and secure power bases.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History
01 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
There's an old saying that history often repeats itself, and so it has done concerning recent abuses of power by the executive branch. I believe this is a most serious matter threatening the very structural foundation of freedom established by this nation's founders. James Madison, quoting Montesquieu in the Federalist Papers No. 47, stated, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates."
The Fed
Budget Standoff Continues
15 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 November 1999 verse 8 ... Cached
An across the board 1% spending cut to offset these spending increases?? In Washington, seemingly unthinkable. A tax cut bill to slowly phase out the federal inheritance tax, eliminate the marriage penalty tax, and make IRA retirement accounts more flexible and tax-friendly?? Vetoed.
The Fed
This Year's Successes
22 November 1999 Texas Straight Talk 22 November 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Early this year we focused much attention on defeating the proposed "Know Your Customer" federal banking regulation. This regulation proposed by the Federal Reserve and others would have given banks a broad mandate to spy on their customers and report any unusual transactions.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Cosponsored Bills
20 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
Four bills that I cosponsored this year have actually passed through the House. Two of them were "Sense of Congress" resolutions. One of these expressed the opinion that no federal funds should go to the sacrilegious displays at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and the other one stated that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events ought to be considered constitutional. This latter issue has been very important in Texas where a federal court ruled that prayer before a school football game was unconstitutional. The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew that the constitution they gave us was interpreted by liberal judges as prohibiting a prayer at a local high school. This travesty must not stand, and the real solution, of course, is for the federal courts to keep their noses out of the business of local school districts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
Essentially, no one in Washington, on Wall Street, or in the financial media challenges the inflationary policy of the Fed, believing that the favorable status quo will continue indefinitely as long as the money wizard stays in charge. In good times it's easy to forget severe recessions and commodity price inflation. Today, just about everyone endorses the New Era in prosperity that technology and Alan Greenspan have delivered to us. Inflation, as defined by a rising CPI, has been declared dead.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
But one thing ignored is the fact that a fiat monetary system is incompatible with a free market economy. Instead of depending on production and savings for capital, today's economy depends on new "capital" coming from the Fed's credit machine. When credit is created out of thin air for investment purposes and interest rates are driven artificially low, mal-investment results. This monetary inflation, of which we have had plenty, has already set the stage for the next recession.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Many are delighted that Greenspan will stay in charge, believing he can prevent an economic turndown with proper monetary management. Sorry, but it's too late. The distortions are already in place, and because the most recent economic cycle has lasted longer than usual, it means there's been more credit creation and distortion than usual. Therefore a bigger downturn will result. The only policy available to the Fed today is to further inflate the currency in an attempt to delay the inevitable correction.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Greenspan has already supervised one serious recession in the early 1990s. No matter how astute a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is, it's impossible to avoid recessions when managing a fiat monetary system. Alan Greenspan has been quite generous when it comes to creating new money. Since 1987 when Greenspan took over, high-powered money, as measured by the monetary base, has increased by 138%. This has resulted in an increase of nearly $3 trillion of bank deposits as measured by M3. This new money creation keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be, making the banks and Wall Street happy. It also pleases the spendthrift politicians who during Greenspan's term have increased the national debt by $32 trillion. Almost the entire increase in the national debt since 1987 has been monetized or paid for by Greenspan printing new money.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 12 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve will always want to avert a collapse of the stock market, just as it did publicly with Long Term Capital Management. But it can only do that for a limited period of time. The markets will eventually rule. They always do.
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 14 ... Cached
Alan Greenspan was at one time a free market adherent and gold standard advocate. Read what he had to say about the Federal Reserve Board policy of the 1920s and the subsequent depression. The experts in the 20s had also declared a New Era economic growth without price inflation resulting from technological advances and wise monetary management. Greenspan explains: "The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late. By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a constant demoralizing of business confidence." (Gold and Economic Freedom, 1966)
The Fed
Greenspan Nominated to a Fourth Term
17 January 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2000 verse 15 ... Cached
Maybe Alan Greenspan has been at the Fed too long. It seems he now believes in his own greatness. He should read his own analysis, decline the nomination, and hope the next chairman gets blamed for the correction already built into the system.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Sound Money Needed More Than Ever
28 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Well, perhaps the best way to answer the question is to consider when the Fed did indeed take the first step on the path of its current policy direction toward raising the Fed funds rate. If you'll recall, it was at the very first Fed meeting after President Clinton's impeachment trial had been wrapped up in the US Senate.
The Fed
Sound Money Needed More Than Ever
28 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
So, as the President faced a stiff challenge that could threaten the very existence of his Presidency, Mr. Greenspan kept the money flowing and the good times rolling, even as he was speaking the rhetoric of increased concern for the economy. Now if anybody is surprised that the future of our US economy would be subjected to political manipulation to assist a troubled President you ought not to be. Indeed it is the history of the Fed to be responsive to certain political needs of, and pressures from, the political power brokers who have influence over the appointment and confirmation of Fed board members, including the Fed chair. Nobody who has seriously considered Fed action in light of election-year politics and troubled political leaders could argue with a straight face that the one does not directly affect the other.
The Fed
Sound Money Needed More Than Ever
28 February 2000 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
The bottom line is that Greenspan's admission suggests that, even without the negative affects of political considerations, a fiat monetary policy is doomed to fail. When we add to the mix the all-too-human tendency of central planners responding to political pressure, as Greenspan and the fed money making machine clearly did throughout the impeachment process, what we have is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, Greenspan's admission points anew to the fact that a big mess is coming. But fortunately for those who are listening, it also presents proof-positive that the best way to avoid such calamities in the future is to reset our monetary policy on a firm and sound basis.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Government Snoops Threaten Privacy
08 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Time To Put Chains on the Feds, Not Give Them More Power
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Local Control is the Key to Education Reform
04 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 04 September 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
I also introduced the "Education Improvement Tax Cut Act" (H.R. 936) in an effort to give parents more control over improving their local schools. The Act allows individuals to claim a tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for cash or other donations to a school or scholarship program. This approach encourages parents to spend money to improve the school their child attends, rather than pay more in federal taxes to support distant education programs that reflect only the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
The Fed
Spending, Tax Cuts, or Debt Reduction?
25 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 25 September 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
This "lockbox" bill underscores the rise of a very important debate on Capitol Hill regarding our nation's "budget surplus." It is important to understand the budget process when we consider the rhetoric from Washington and the national media. While many politicians seek to take credit for the seemingly rosy outlook for the federal budget, it is easy for the public to be misled regarding the true nature of the surplus.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Turn Out the Lights
15 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
As frightening as this development may be to Americans who believe in free markets, it was not unexpected. California has faced severe energy shortages for more than a year. Residents and businesses in the state have seen dramatic increases in their monthly electric bills, with some paying 200% more than a year ago. Shortages and blackouts are threatened. In response to this crisis, California Governor Gray Davis has become an increasingly vocal proponent of an outright socialist energy system for the nation's largest state. He decided (not surprisingly) to go to the Feds for help, resulting in the meeting with Energy secretary Bill Richardson and Treasury secretary Larry Summers, among others.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?"
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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).
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
19 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
The Fed
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
19 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve did two things to artificially expand the economy over the last decade. First, it relentlessly lowered interest rates whenever growth slowed. Interest rates should be set by the free market, with the availability of capital (i.e. savings) determining the cost of borrowing money. In a healthy market economy, more saving equals lower interest rates. When savings rates are low, capital dries up and the cost of borrowing increases. When interest rates are set by the market, individuals and businesses make good spending decisions, because they pay an accurate interest rate for their debts. However, when the Fed set rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. Individuals incur greater amounts of debt (evidenced by the record number of personal bankruptcies), while businesses overextend themselves and grow without real gains in productivity. The bubble bursts quickly once the credit dries up and the bills cannot be paid.
The Fed
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
19 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Second, the Fed also steadily increased the monetary supply throughout the 1990s by printing money. Recent Fed numbers show yearly increases of nearly 15% in the M2 money supply. Since 1996, the Fed has poured more than $100 billion in new dollars into the U.S. economy. These new dollars may make Americans feel richer, but the net result of monetary inflation has to be the devaluation of savings and purchasing power. Prices seemed stable over the last decade, but many types of inflation were not reported as such. An obvious example is stock prices, where companies making little or no profit often sold shares at ridiculous price/earnings ratios. Housing and energy prices also rose dramatically, and wholesale price inflation is an increasing threat. So while monetary inflation creates a sense of prosperity in the short run, long-term it simply makes your dollars worth less.
The Fed
Economic Woes and the Federal Reserve
19 March 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2001 verse 9 ... Cached
Only six months ago, market pundits were still proclaiming a new era of unending prosperity. They claimed that the fundamentals no longer mattered, that technology would save us from any more bear markets. Technology is wonderful, but it cannot save us from our own misguided monetary policies. Until we stop permitting the Fed to manipulate the economy, real prosperity will elude us. The Fed received credit for the boom times of the 1990s, yet its policies are responsible for the market correction and economic recession we are experiencing today.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Uncontrolled Spending Threatens Our Liberty
02 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
I particularly object to proposals to add billions to the federal Education department budget. Every year Congress spends more on education, yet our public schools continue to decline. Now Congress wants to expand the education budget by about 11%, meaning taxpayers will spend nearly $50 billion next year on more failed federal education programs. Those dollars should remain at the local level, where parents and teachers make better decisions than federal education bureaucrats.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
The Federal Education Morass
28 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 28 May 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
The Federal Education Morass
The Fed
The Federal Education Morass
28 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 28 May 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
The bill increases the Education department budget by a whopping 22 percent- more than even the liberals had hoped. The $9.2 billion increase brings the total department budget to more than $50 billion. No one mentions the high tax rates we all pay to finance this spending. We must remember that every dollar parents send to Washington is a dollar they don't have to spend directly on their children's education. Most education tax dollars sent to Washington fund the federal bureaucracy; far less than half of each dollar is ever returned to local schools. More importantly, federal school dollars come with strings attached. The more money we give to education bureaucrats, the more power they have to dictate how local schools are run. When federal spending increases, local schools are forced to do whatever it takes to get their share, even if this means adopting one size fits all policies mandated in Washington. In other words, federal money is used as a club to force schools to surrender more and more of their decision making authority to Washington.
The Fed
The Federal Education Morass
28 May 2001 Texas Straight Talk 28 May 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Congress never seems to learn that Washington does not know what is best for kids. While both parties claim to stand for education, their bureaucratic approach should no longer be tolerated by American education consumers. American parents will spend generously on their children's education, but Congress must be willing to lower tax burdens and ease the federal stranglehold on education that has destroyed our public schools.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
"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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congressional Spending Threatens your Retirement
27 August 2001 Texas Straight Talk 27 August 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
President Bush has been criticized in recent weeks over forecasts that the federal budget surplus will be smaller than expected at the end of 2001. Some in Congress and the media have even attempted to assert that the president's modest tax cut is somehow threatening the Social Security trust fund! This is preposterous- the economic slowdown causing the decline in federal revenues unquestionably began in the last year of the Clinton administration. The hypocrisy of the president's critics is especially galling when so many of the same politicians are the biggest spenders in Congress. After all, it is their massive unconstitutional spending which is the real threat to your Social Security dollars.
The Fed
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
03 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
The Fed
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
03 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
All of these economic problems have developed despite the massive interest rate- cutting measure taken by the Fed over the past two years. Chairman Greenspan has cut interest rates 7 times in 2001 alone, most recently in mid-August. However, the markets have not responded, and Wall Street continues to pressure the Fed to reduce rates even more. This trend developed steadily throughout the 1990's- each time the economy showed signs of a downturn, the Fed cut rates. Yet it is becoming apparent that this practice cannot work forever, and that every short-term fix simply puts off the inevitable painful correction that must follow.
The Fed
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
03 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Still, while some in America have begun to challenge the wisdom of Alan Greenspan, few seem to question the concept of the Fed bank itself. In fact, the financial and political press never discuss the dangers of a fiat currency system managed by a centralized bank. Remember, every time the Fed cuts interest rates, it expands the amount of money in the economy. Economists have a simple word for this increase in the money supply: inflation. Inflation means your money has less buying power and your retirement savings are worth less. Yet we never hear the Fed criticized for its inflationary measures- on the contrary, Greenspan was widely praised throughout the 1990s as the all-knowing sage responsible for the good times.
The Fed
The Fed Cannot Create Prosperity
03 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 03 September 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The truth is that the good times may be coming to an end. The Fed, far from being our savior, is actually the cause of the current economic troubles. The Fed's easy credit policies flooded the economy with cheap money over the last decade, but the bills are coming due. With lots of artificial investment capital in the marketplace, businesses and individuals spent with less discipline and incurred more debt. The stock market became wildly overvalued, with many companies trading at outrageous prices. We should expect both personal and business bankruptcies to continue to climb as the bubble bursts.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures
15 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 15 October 2001 verse 8 ... Cached
Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
The Fed
U.S. Armed Forces Should Protect American Soil
22 October 2001 Texas Straight Talk 22 October 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The simple solution is not huge increases in defense spending. The federal budget is not unlimited; taxpayers cannot be expected to pay infinite amounts of money for national defense. While non-defense spending certainly should be cut drastically, the most realistic approach is to reassign most of our troops currently overseas to stateside duty defending our borders.
The Fed
The Feds at the Airport
19 November 2001 Texas Straight Talk 19 November 2001 verse 2 ... Cached
The Feds at the Airport
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Enron, Bankruptcy, and Easy Credit
17 December 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 December 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty?
11 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 February 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are also quite serious. Although the recession certainly cannot be blamed solely on the September 11th attacks, the huge increases in federal spending and the effects of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs, and the costs of new regulations, it is certain that deficits will grow significantly. The Federal Reserve will remain under great pressure to continue its dangerous monetary inflation by printing dollars and expanding credit. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar, and rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control cannot be dismissed.
The Fed
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the now- infamous Cleveland school vouchers case. At issue, at least in the Cleveland case, is whether publicly-funded vouchers can be used by children attending private and parochial schools. While the court will focus on the tenuous argument that a "separation of church and state" renders vouchers unconstitutional, the larger issue for all of us is whether the federal education system needs to be scrapped. After all, if centralized Washington control of education was working, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for vouchers in the first place.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Voucher Debate and the Failure of Public Education
25 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 25 February 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The stark contrast between our public schools then and now shows that federal control of education has failed. Today’s public schools often produce graduates who lack even basic reading and writing skills. Politically-motivated multiculturism and leftist indoctrination take the place of rigorous learning. Teacher unions fight to protect their turf and save jobs, rather than focusing on the education of our kids. Many public schools are dilapidated and dangerous, with teachers afraid of students and discipline nonexistent. Given this reality, we can hardly be surprised that parents are demanding vouchers to get their children out of a failing system. The federal bureaucrats may claim that vouchers will undermine public schools, but the truth is that federal education already has failed miserably, and competition could only improve matters.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Are Your Taxes Too Low?
22 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 April 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal spending is wildly out of control, as evidenced by an annual budget that doubled between 1990 and 2000. Congress will spend $2.3 trillion in 2003, an astounding 22% more than 1999. Federal taxes now consume more of the legitimate private economy (as a percentage of GDP) that at any other time in our nation’s history except WWII. The federal budget is full of billions in unconstitutional and wasteful pork, and no serious person can argue otherwise. Those who oppose tax cuts simply use populist arguments to mask their support for the special-interests that benefit from uncontrolled spending.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Congress Spends, Future Generations Pay the Bills
03 June 2002 Texas Straight Talk 03 June 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress recently passed the so-called "supplemental" spending bill, wasting billions of your tax dollars supplementing the already swollen $2.3 trillion 2003 federal budget. Congress loves the annual supplemental bill, because unlike other spending bills, the supplemental does not fund any particular federal departments or agencies. This means members and the administration can find a home for pet spending projects that would not be permitted in a defense or education bill. This year, however, the supplemental also provides convenient cover for the big-spenders to quietly increase the federal debt ceiling.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Tax Cuts and Class Wars
20 January 2003 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes- rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice Crisis
31 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 31 March 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Many Americans understandably want Congress to fix the medical malpractice problem. Yet the “solution” offered by Congress, namely the federalization of malpractice law, threatens to do more harm than good. First and foremost, this approach damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules. Capping liability limits sounds appealing, but it fails to address the basic problem of too many lawsuits and too many shakedowns, most of which settle for less than the proposed caps anyway.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal Debt Spiral
02 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 02 June 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
The Federal Debt Spiral
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Declining Dollar, Declining Fortunes
23 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
Of course capitalism is based on the premise that centralized economic planning is bad. I’m always amazed that otherwise pro-market conservatives, who rightfully scorned disastrous Soviet economic policies, are so willing to accept centralized monetary planning by the Fed. True capitalism requires a free market for money and interest rates, just as surely as it requires a free market for wages and prices.
The Fed
Declining Dollar, Declining Fortunes
23 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Mr. Greenspan declined to answer my question about the tumbling value of the dollar, citing a kind of gentlemen’s agreement between him and the Treasury department not to discuss dollar policy. This is preposterous, of course, because he is unquestionably the one man on earth most responsible for the value of the U.S. dollar. If a member of Congress cannot ask the Federal Reserve Chairman a straightforward question about dollar policy, how can we expect the American public to have the faintest idea about what the Fed really does? The answer is that very few Americans pay any attention to the Fed, which has successfully insulated itself as a “nonpolitical” entity.
The Fed
Declining Dollar, Declining Fortunes
23 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Both Congress and the Fed should be promoting sound dollar policies, because a sound and stable currency is required for sustained economic growth. Instead, both have through default and deliberate action promoted fiat policies that systematically depreciate the dollar. The financial markets understand this, and investors track the minute-by-minute fluctuations in value of the dollar seeking an investment advantage. This kind of speculation would not exist in a sound monetary system.
The Fed
Declining Dollar, Declining Fortunes
23 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 23 June 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
Mr. Greenspan certainly basked in the glow of admiration during the 1990s, when money and credit seemed limitless. He was deemed a genius by both the financial press and a general public eager to let the good times roll. Even today, with the nation mired in the inevitable bust following the Fed’s artificially-created boom, his detractors are few. In fact, President Bush plans to offer Mr. Greenspan another term as Fed chief. If our economic woes continue, however, the nation someday may regret not taking a closer look at the Federal Reserve and its manipulation of our financial fortunes.
The Fed
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
A better approach would utilize Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to provide flexibility and choice. Medicare monies could be placed in tax-free savings accounts and used by individual seniors as they see fit to buy prescription drugs, visit the doctor, or buy special services like mammograms. MSAs allow consumers to make their own choices by eliminating the federal middleman. But even this compromise approach means giving individuals control over tax dollars, which bureaucrats hate to do.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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;
The Fed
Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
21 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 July 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed income and savings, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement but find their dollars eroded by inflation.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
21 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 July 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
Yet even as the Chairman warned about the supposed danger of deflation, he also discussed his view that rising natural gas prices pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy. There seems to be no coherent message coming from Mr. Greenspan: we’re warned about “irrational exuberance” even as the Fed cuts interest rates and wildly inflates the money supply; we’re told there is no inflation, yet housing prices skyrocket; we’re told that only our central bank planners have the wisdom to determine proper monetary policies, yet the Chairman himself seems to equivocate constantly and provide only the fuzziest answers to straightforward questions.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Inflation Punishes Saving
21 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 21 July 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
Centralized planning is as disastrous in monetary affairs as in economic affairs. Just as Russian commissars could not determine prices or production levels in the absence of a free market, the Federal Reserve Board cannot determine the “proper” level for interest rates or the money supply. Our fiat currency and artificially low interest rates can only result in the deterioration of the U.S. dollar through inflation, which in the end will cause interest rates to rise no matter what the Fed says or does. Older Americans especially stand to suffer most from Mr. Greenspan’s easy money policies.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
11 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Tyranny of Paper Money
08 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
In an article entitled “Gold and Economic Freedom,” Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market- triggering a fantastic speculative boom…The speculative imbalances had become overwhelming and unmanageable by the Fed… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” The irony is that Mr. Greenspan’s words, written in 1966 to describe the era leading up to the Great Depression, could easily have been written in 2003 to describe the consequences of his own Fed policies during the 1990s.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Tyranny of Paper Money
08 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of monetary policy. We all deal with the consequences of our fiat money system, however. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest. Their dollars depreciate in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can’t keep up with the rising cost of living.
The Fed
The Tyranny of Paper Money
08 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
We do hear some minor criticism directed toward the Federal Reserve, but the validity of the fiat system is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Your Money in Iraq
29 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 2003 verse 16 ... Cached
Criticism of this foreign aid spending in Iraq is not restricted to the political left. Conservative groups and politicians are increasingly angry at the administration’s exorbitant spending. For example, Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee sits on the Appropriations committee, which is responsible for all spending bills. He has a modest idea: insist the reconstruction money be paid back as a loan when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Similarly, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona wants to offset every dollar spent reconstructing Iraq with spending cuts in others areas, especially given the amount of wasteful pork in the federal budget. But the White House is adamantly opposed to both ideas. Why is a supposedly conservative administration resisting even the slightest attempts at fiscal restraint?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
$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.
The Fed
The Appropriations Process
27 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Lobbyists also play a central role, acting as shadow legislators and pushing to ensure their clients get a healthy share of the federal largesse. Lobbyists wield power over legislators either by promising campaign funds, or threatening to support an opponent. Members of Congress understand this very clearly, and they work hard to avoid alienating any group represented by a powerful lobby.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Economic Woes Begin at Home
03 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
China exports many products into the United States, which makes her a convenient scapegoat for our economic problems. Demanding that China adjust its currency valuation is merely a distraction from addressing the real economic dilemmas facing our country, however. Congress should be focused on our own disastrous monetary policies. As long as the Fed can print money at will and set interest rates, the value of our dollars will be subject to the whims of politicians and the perceived economic needs of politically powerful special interests.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Medicare Plunder
24 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress worked late into the night this past weekend to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that represents the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. The new Medicare drug plan enriches pharmaceutical companies, fleeces taxpayers, and forces millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage—while doing nothing to address the real reasons prescription drugs cost so much.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?”
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Congress Goes AWOL
09 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress is to blame for its craven failure to seriously debate, much less declare, war in Iraq. The Constitution squarely charges Congress with the duty to declare war, a weighty responsibility that our founders thought should rest with the body most directly responsible to the people. The president’s status as commander-in-chief grants him the power only to execute war, not to decide whether war is justified. This is not seriously debatable by anyone who honestly examines the Constitution and the Federalist papers.
The Fed
Greenspan's Black Magic
23 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan painted a rosy picture of the U.S. economy. In his eyes, the Fed’s aggressive expansion of the money supply and suppression of interest rates have strengthened the financial condition of American households and industries. If this is true, however, our nation’s "prosperity" is merely a temporary illusion based on smoke and mirrors. True wealth cannot be created simply by printing money; families and businesses cannot prosper by getting deeper in debt.
The Fed
Greenspan's Black Magic
23 February 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Never mind, says Mr. Greenspan. Mortgage refinancing, made wildly popular by artificially low interest rates established by the Fed, will be the saving grace of American households. They can simply borrow against their homes to finance living beyond their means, a practice encouraged by Fed policies. But what happens when home prices stop going up? What happens when families reach a point where they cannot make payments on two, three, or even more mortgages? How can the Fed chairman equate mortgage credit with real economic growth?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Inflation- Alive and Well
08 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
For years, the central planners at the Federal Reserve have assured us that inflation is dormant, if not dead. Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke, during a recent speech in Washington, took pains to emphasize that inflation is “Under very good control.” But considering the relentless increase in the money supply engineered by the Fed over the last decade, one wonders whether Mr. Bernanke, Chairman Greenspan, and company protest too much.
The Fed
Inflation- Alive and Well
08 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
“The Federal Reserve always promises that it’s working to bring down inflation, but as Murray N. Rothbard shows in The Case Against the Fed, it never does. Since the Fed came into being, the dollar’s value has plummeted to less than a penny, and even at a 3% inflation rate, prices will tend to double every 25 years… The Fed wants to cover its crimes by appearing more successful at ‘battling inflation.’ What the Fed doesn’t want to talk about is the real cause of inflation: not greedy consumers, avaricious workers, or price-gouging corporations, but the central bank itself, and its power and practice of creating money out of thin air.”
The Fed
Inflation- Alive and Well
08 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
The Treasury department parrots the Fed line that consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But even some Keynesian economists admit that CPI grossly understates true inflation. The most glaring problem is that CPI excludes housing prices, instead tracking rents. The Fed’s easy credit policies have created an artificial mortgage boom, enabling many Americans who would not have met credit standards 30 years ago to buy houses. So demand for rentals has diminished, causing rental housing prices to drop and distorting the CPI downward. However, everyone knows the cost of purchasing a home has increased dramatically in the last ten years. Home prices in many regions have more than doubled in just five years. So price inflation certainly is alive and well when to comes to the largest purchase most Americans make.
The Fed
Congressional Indecency
15 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Congress is patting itself on the back after passing legislation last week that expands the power of the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on broadcasters with heavy new $500,000 fines. Most politicians were all too eager to appease those demanding that Congress “do something” about racy Super Bowl shows and distasteful radio hosts, especially in an election year. It is clear that most members of Congress gave little thought to the legality or wisdom of the bill, caring only that they be seen as defenders of all things decent.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
March (Budget) Madness
29 March 2004 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Furthermore, the budget passed last week further entrenches another phony Washington concept. An increasing percentage of the budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a bureaucrat’s dream, because it assumes we as a society simply have accepted that most federal programs must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
The Federal War on Pain Relief
The Fed
The Federal War on Pain Relief
19 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh’s use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Debt Engine
26 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve Debt Engine
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Debt Engine
26 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress and the financial press treat Mr. Greenspan as an all-knowing sage, seeking his wisdom on political and even social issues that have nothing to do with monetary policy. During last week’s hearing Mr. Greenspan was asked his opinion on topics such as Social Security, tax cuts, federal spending, corporate accounting rules, the congressional budget process, and even immigration. It seems bizarre that a credulous Congress and public are willing to accept the judgment of on unelected, virtually unaccountable central banker while knowing little or nothing about the Federal Reserve itself.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Debt Engine
26 April 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
During past recessions, many Americans shed debt either through bankruptcy or through austerity measures. In other words, they either changed their spending and borrowing habits or went broke. At some point their debts were in essence cleared from the books. In the recent recession of 2000-2002, however, many cash-strapped households managed to stay ahead of creditors by borrowing even more money. This is directly attributable to Fed easy-money policies, which greatly expanded the money supply and caused banks to lower creditworthiness standards. As a result, many Americans are overextended rather than bankrupt. Someday, however, they simply won’t be able to borrow another dime. All the Fed has done is make the bubble bigger and postpone the day of reckoning. This hardly makes for a strong economy, which must be based on savings and investment.
The Fed
The War on Drugs is a War on Doctors
17 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 17 May 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat. Faced with their ongoing failure to curtail the illegal drug trade, federal drug agencies have found an easier target in ordinary doctors whose only crime is prescribing perfectly legal pain medication. By applying federal statutes intended for drug dealers, federal prosecutors are waging a senseless and destructive war on doctors. The real victims of the new campaign are not only doctors, but their patients as well.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Zero Down for the American Dream
21 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 21 June 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Despite the congressional rhetoric about helping the poor, federal housing policies often harm poor people by pushing them into houses they may not be ready to buy. Given the realities of insurance, property taxes, maintenance, and repairs, many low-income buyers lose their homes and destroy their credit ratings. Easy credit and low interest rates, courtesy of the Federal Reserve, have dramatically increased housing demand and artificially increased prices. Zero down payment schemes do the same thing by pushing renters into the housing market. This increased demand actually serves to price many poor Americans out of the housing market indefinitely.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Resisting Judicial Tyranny
26 July 2004 Texas Straight Talk 26 July 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
The US House passed the Marriage Protection Act last week, a bill designed to ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution is not used to impose gay marriage on Texas or any other state. You may remember Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which explicitly authorizes states to refuse recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitated further congressional action. The Act underscores an important legal point: Marbury vs. Madison did not alter the congressional power to regulate and limit federal court jurisdiction, which is plainly stated in Article III. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. In other words, the federalist concept of checks and balances applies to the judiciary just as it does to the legislative and executive branches. The Marriage Protection Act represents a long-overdue exercise of the congressional power to limit and define federal court jurisdiction.
The Fed
Useless Conventions
02 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 2004 verse 2 ... Cached
Not all Americans know their taxes fund both the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. In fact, the political parties receive nearly $15 million apiece from the Federal Election Committee to hold their conventions. Checking the little box on your 1040 form to give one dollar to the parties changes nothing, as the convention money comes from general revenues whether you check the box or not.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The Texas GOP platform also calls for a congressional audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, and demands full public access to the written minutes from Fed board meetings. Such an audit could at the very least serve to educate the American people about Fed inflation and the dangers of fiat currency. In Washington, the Federal Reserve system is virtually never discussed by Congress or the administration, despite its enormous impact on our economic well-being. Monetary policy is simply off the table as a political and policy matter for both national parties, but the Texas GOP recognizes the importance of sound money.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II
20 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 20 September 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
Some members of Congress objected to my amendment on the grounds that the federal screening program does not yet exist, so it’s premature to oppose it. But the whole point was to prevent the proposal from being implemented in the first place. Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Congress had a rare opportunity to stop a bad idea in its tracks, before it becomes entrenched. Every member who opposes the idea of forcing kids to undergo mental health screening should have sent a strong statement by voting for my amendment. They will have another chance to kill the initiative when I introduce a stand-alone bill later this year.
The Fed
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has intensified in the decades since Roe v. Wade. This practice is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 8 ... 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. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly. As the ultimate insider, he cannot or will not challenge the status quo, no matter what the consequences to the American economy. To renounce the fiat system now would mean renouncing the Fed itself, and his entire public career with it. The only question is whether history will properly reflect the destructive nature of Mr. Greenspan’s tenure.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
The Maestro Changes his Tune
21 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 21 February 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
First, the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. The clearest example of this lies in our current account deficit, which our fiat currency encourages. Under a gold standard we would not have exchange rate distortions between the Chinese renminbi and the U.S. dollar, for example. True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Tax Reform is a Shell Game
07 March 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 March 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Tax reform is back in the news, brought to the political forefront by a recent meeting of the president’s advisory panel on tax reform. Once again, politicians and former politicians are lamenting the complexity of our tax laws, as though their own spending measures have nothing to do with it. But we’ve heard this song before. In fact, we’ve been promised a simpler, fairer, and better income tax system many times, most recently in 1997 and 1986 when Congress made relatively significant changes to the tax code. Yet the federal tax system remains an embarrassment, both in terms of the tax burden itself and the outrageous compliance costs engendered by its complexity.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
04 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Many military veterans were shocked to see that the federal budget for 2006 makes several cuts in veterans benefits and services. Under the proposed budget, the Veterans Administration will increase once again the co-pay cost of prescription drugs, while adding a new annual fee for medical benefits. The budget also calls for the reduction of veterans home funding and limits the number of VA nursing home beds. Some members of Congress have even suggested rewriting the definition of "veteran" in a way that could deny VA health benefits for millions of retired servicemen.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
23 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 23 May 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Congress and the Federal Reserve Erode Your Dollars
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Politics and Judicial Activism
15 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 15 August 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember, this is a Congress that has increased spending by 33% since President Bush took office in 2001. And we're not talking about national defense or anti-terrorism spending. We're talking about a one-third increase in garden variety domestic spending. This is also a Congress that passed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. So there's not much credibility to be found on Capitol Hill when it comes to reducing the federal budget.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 12 ... Cached
Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
The Fed
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Benjamin Bernanke, a former member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, is all but certain to be confirmed by the Senate as the next Chairman of that institution. He may find that the adulation given to Mr. Greenspan does not carry over into his tenure so easily, especially if he continues to help Congress run up huge deficits.
The Fed
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."
The Fed
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
But there is a cost, and it's a heavy one. It's called monetary inflation, which destroys the value of the dollar and punishes those who save and invest. The money supply, as measured by the Fed's own M3 figure, has increased about 5 times since 1980. Yet for years officials at the Fed have insisted that inflation is firmly in check.
The Fed
More of the Same at the Federal Reserve
28 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 November 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The fundamental question is whether a central bank can manage the supply of money and credit better than the free market otherwise would. We shouldn't kid ourselves about the true nature of the Fed, which is inherently incompatible with real free market capitalism. Centralized planning of the money supply is a form of economic control that significantly affects prices, wages, and production levels. Remember how market economists once criticized central planning of prices, wages, and production levels in the former Soviet Union?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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”?
The Fed
Small Steps Toward Immigration Reform
19 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 19 December 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, HR 4437 “treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.”
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power
16 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 January 2006 verse 10 ... Cached
The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
The Fed
Federalizing Social Policy
30 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
For years the Federal Reserve Bank and Congress have maintained a cozy relationship. The Fed, by pumping more and more money into the economy, has allowed Congress to spend wildly beyond the amount collected each year by the Treasury. Congress loves deficit spending, because new programs are always politically popular and tax hikes are always unpopular. In return, Congress has maintained a completely hands-off approach toward the Fed system, allowing Mr. Greenspan free reign to "run the economy" with tremendous deference from both the public and the press.
The Fed
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
The results are not pretty. True inflation, correctly measured by the amount of money and credit available, has skyrocketed in the last 15 years. At the same time, federal deficits have exploded. Congress is addicted to spending, and the Fed is happy to supply the fix by providing easy money.
The Fed
The Real Washington Scandal
06 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 06 February 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
As economist Addison Wiggin states, however, "The Grand Experiment with paper money is running its inevitable course. Bernanke's biggest challenge is the challenge of central banking itself: You can control some things, but not everything. In the Fed's case, it can control the quantity of money or the quality of it, but not both at the same time."
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Katrina Relief Six Months Later
20 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
These abuses were inevitable, unfortunately. They are the direct result of a top-down, centralized, bureaucratic system that wrongly assumes Washington planners always know best, that every issue and problem should be addressed at the federal level. But clearly Washington officials were in no position to know what was needed in the gulf coast in the aftermath of a hurricane.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.”
The Fed
The Perils of Economic Ignorance
27 March 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 March 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
I certainly have seen firsthand a great deal of economic ignorance in Congress over the years. Few members pay any attention whatsoever to the Federal Reserve Bank, despite the tremendous impact Fed policy has on their constituents. Even many members of the banking and finance committees have little or no knowledge of monetary policy. Perhaps this is why so many in Congress seem to believe we can all become rich by printing new dollars, or that we can make 2+2=5 by taking money from some people and giving it to others.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices
08 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 08 May 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
We also must understand the effect monetary policy has on gas prices. The price of gas, like the price of all things, goes up because of inflation. And inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
The Fed
The Declining Dollar Erodes Personal Savings
15 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Remember, gold is static. Gold isn’t going up, the dollar is going down. And it’s going to continue until the American people demand an end to deficit spending by Congress and unrestrained creation of new dollars by the Federal Reserve and Treasury department.
The Fed
The Declining Dollar Erodes Personal Savings
15 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
A sharply rising gold price is really a vote of “no confidence” in Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East.
The Fed
The Declining Dollar Erodes Personal Savings
15 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 15 May 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
As Mr. Mehring suggests, the Federal Reserve may have no choice but to raise interest rates to maintain foreign enthusiasm for our dollar. It’s a serious problem that new Fed Chair Benjamin Bernanke must address sooner or later: propping up the dollar with higher interest rates without killing the U.S. economy in the process.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Why Won't Congress Abolish the Estate Tax?
12 June 2006 Texas Straight Talk 12 June 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
The U.S. Senate had a golden opportunity to repeal the federal estate tax last week, but fell a few votes short. I fear that vote might represent the high-water mark in the movement to get rid of this destructive tax once and for all.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 3 ... Cached
For years officials at the Federal Reserve Bank, including Chairman Bernanke himself, have assured us that inflation is under control and not a problem-- even as the price of housing, energy, medical care, school tuition, gold, and other commodities skyrockets.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
The Treasury department parrots the Fed line that consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), are under control. But even many mainstream economists now admit that CPI grossly understates true inflation. The most glaring problem is that CPI excludes housing prices, instead tracking rents. Everyone knows the cost of purchasing a home has increased dramatically in the last ten years; in many regions housing prices have more than doubled in just five years. So price inflation certainly is alive and well when to comes to the largest purchase most Americans make.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
When the Federal Reserve increases the supply of dollars in circulation, both paper and electronic, prices must rise eventually. What other result it possible? The supply of dollars has risen much faster than the supply of goods and services being chased by those dollars. Fed policy makers have more than doubled the money supply in less than ten years. While Treasury printing presses can print unlimited dollars, there are natural limits to economic growth. This flood of newly minted US currency can only increase consumer prices in the long term.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Faced with uncomfortable financial realities, Congress will seek to avoid the day of reckoning by the most expedient means available-- and the Federal Reserve undoubtedly will accommodate Washington by printing more dollars to pay the bills. The Fed is the enabler for the spending addicts in Congress, who would rather spend new fiat money than face the political consequences of raising taxes or borrowing more abroad.
The Fed
Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings
10 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 10 July 2006 verse 9 ... Cached
The irony is that many of the Fed’s biggest cheerleaders are the same supposed capitalists who denounced centralized economic planning when practiced by the former Soviet Union. Large banks and Wall Street firms love the Fed’s easy money policy, because they profit at the front end from the resulting loan boom and artificially high equity prices. It’s the little guy who loses when the inflated dollars finally trickle down to him and erode his buying power. Someday Americans will understand that Federal Reserve bankers have no magic ability-- and certainly no legal or moral right-- to decide how much money should exist and what the cost of borrowing money should be.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
What Congress Can Do About High Gas Prices
31 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.
The Fed
What Congress Can Do About High Gas Prices
31 July 2006 Texas Straight Talk 31 July 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Exploding deficits, due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of overseas engagements, create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we’re all paying at the pump.
The Fed
The Threat of Rising Property Taxes
07 August 2006 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
At the federal level, Congress can act now to provide relief to those paying high property taxes. Although property taxes are deductible on your federal tax return, the current rules require taxpayers to itemize to take the deduction. Many people have a hard time paying $2,000 or $3,000 in property taxes, but they don’t have enough other itemized deductions to exceed the standard deduction.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Deficit Spending and Social Security
09 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Congress can begin addressing the problem immediately by cutting at least 5% from other areas of the federal budget every year for the next five years. The budget has nearly tripled just since 1990; surely Congress can find 5% worth of fat to cut each year. When members of Congress vote for bigger and bigger appropriations bills each year, they threaten the very solvency of Social Security. That's why I vote against every wasteful appropriations bill.
The Fed
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 4 ... Cached
Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes – rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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!
The Fed
Taxes, Spending, and Debt are the Real Issues
16 October 2006 Texas Straight Talk 16 October 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Tax relief is important, but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts- and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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?
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Monetary Inflation is the Problem
04 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Of course Mr. Bernanke inherited this tightrope act from his predecessor Alan Greenspan. The Federal Reserve did two things to artificially expand the economy during the Greenspan era. First, it relentlessly lowered interest rates whenever growth slowed. Interest rates should be set by the free market, with the availability of savings determining the cost of borrowing money. In a healthy market economy, more savings equals lower interest rates. When savings rates are low, capital dries up and the cost of borrowing increases.
The Fed
Monetary Inflation is the Problem
04 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
However, when the Fed sets interest rates artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. Individuals incur greater amounts of debt, while businesses overextend themselves and grow without real gains in productivity. The bubble bursts quickly once the credit dries up and the bills cannot be paid.
The Fed
Monetary Inflation is the Problem
04 December 2006 Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2006 verse 8 ... Cached
Second, the Fed steadily increased the monetary supply throughout the 1990s by printing money. Recent Fed numbers show double-digit annual increases in the M2 money supply. These new dollars may make Americans feel richer, but the net result of monetary inflation has to be the devaluation of savings and purchasing power.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Inflation and War Finance
29 January 2007 Texas Straight Talk 29 January 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Another Spending Bill for the War in Iraq
12 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies twice every year before the congressional Financial Services committee, and I look forward to these opportunities to raise questions about monetary policy. I believe monetary policy is critically important yet overlooked in Washington. Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation's currency means control over its economic well being. Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates. Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck. So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 12 ... Cached
In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.
The Fed
Monetary Policy is Critically Important
19 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 February 2007 verse 14 ... Cached
We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The DC Gun Ban
12 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 12 March 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.
The Fed
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy-- through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money-- caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending.
The Fed
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly.
The Fed
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed’s easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed.
The Fed
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Don't Blame the Market for Housing Bubble
19 March 2007 Texas Straight Talk 19 March 2007 verse 10 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve provides the mother’s milk for the booms and busts wrongly associated with a mythical “business cycle.” Imagine a Brinks truck driving down a busy street with the doors wide open, and money flying out everywhere, and you’ll have a pretty good analogy for Fed policies over the last two decades. Unless and until we get the Federal Reserve out of the business of creating money at will and setting interest rates, we will remain vulnerable to market bubbles and painful corrections. If housing prices plummet and millions of Americans find themselves owing more than their homes are worth, the blame lies squarely with Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The 2008 Federal Budget
02 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 April 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 1 ... Cached
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee. The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Certainly it’s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good? Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being? Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The Fed’s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings. Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings. So while Fed policies encourage younger people to overborrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.
The Fed
The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money
09 April 2007 Texas Straight Talk 09 April 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged. Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism. Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
18 June 2007 Texas Straight Talk 18 June 2007 verse 4 ... Cached
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
High Risk Credit
20 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
As markets went on a rollercoaster ride last week, our economy is coming close to a day of reckoning for loose credit policies being followed by the Federal Reserve Bank. Simply, foreign banks we have been relying on to buy our debt are waking up to the reality of much higher default rates than predicted, and many mortgage backed securities have been reduced to “junk” ratings. Wall Street fears the possibility of tightening credit and the tightening of America’s belts. Why, they say, “if Americans spend only what they can afford, think of the ripple effects throughout the economy!” This is the cry, as the call comes for the fed to cut rates and bail out companies in trouble.
The Fed
High Risk Credit
20 August 2007 Texas Straight Talk 20 August 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
The truth is that business involves risk, and businesses that miscalculate risk should be liquidated, so their assets can be reallocated to businesses that correctly judge risk and make profits. Instead, the Fed has injected $64 billion into the jittery markets, effectively amounting to a bailout that keeps these malinvestments afloat, but eventually they will become the undoing of our economy.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
After the current turmoil in the markets, I was hoping that new Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would see the big picture and act judiciously. Instead he signaled, with an aggressive rate cut, that we can expect a continuation of the monetary policies that got us here to begin with. Alan Greenspan released his memoir this week explaining his policies and decisions in the wake of the irrational exuberance they fueled. His successor should see that it is now time for a change of policy that addresses the root of our troubles. But instead of seeing an inflation problem, the Federal Reserve sees a liquidity problem, which is a little like extinguishing a forest fire with gasoline. In the wake of the rate cut, the Dow jumped and brokers cheered. Behind the headlines, however, the dollar quietly fell and was abandoned by more of the world in favor of more solid stores of wealth.
The Fed
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
The Fed does not act in a vacuum. Mr. Greenspan rightly criticizes Congress and the administration for abandoning principles of fiscal responsibility. However, monetary policy at the Fed did nothing solve money problems, but merely delayed impending crises by creating bubbles.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
The Money Has to Come From Somewhere
23 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 September 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
Printing more money is the Fed’s typical answer, but we are on the verge of runaway inflation. We have printed so many dollars now that we are at parity with the Canadian dollar for the first time since 1976. Since the Fed stopped publishing M3, which tracks the total supply of dollars in the economy, we can’t even be sure how many dollars they are creating. Reported inflation is around 2%, but the method for calculating inflation changed in the 1980’s, largely at Mr. Greenspan’s urging. Private economists using the original method find actual inflation to be over 10%, which matches more closely the pain consumers in the real economy feel.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Tax Reform Promises Treats, Delivers Tricks
04 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 04 November 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
With the leadership in Congress calling for this massive tax hike, spending levels promising to absorb all that and then some (thanks to our ambitiously misguided foreign policy), as well as the Federal Reserve's again cheapening the dollar, American taxpayers are wondering where their purchasing power went. We are working harder than ever before, as our standard of living falls.
The Fed
Pain at the Pump
25 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 November 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
I've introduced The Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415) to deal with some of these issues. My bill would suspend Federal fuel taxes when prices rise above $3.00 a gallon, giving some immediate relief at the pump. It would also repeal misguided legislation that causes more investment in attorneys and nuisance litigation than in actually producing affordable gasoline and strengthening our refining capacity. Also, it would open up ANWR for oil exploration and repeal the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Legislative Forecast for 2008
13 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 January 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
This leads me to my next forecast of more federal bailouts for the housing sector. Efforts by the Federal Reserve to stave off recession will have the net effect of only blowing the bubble bigger, making the crash that much more painful when it inevitably comes. The malinvestments caused by easy credit in the housing industry will be prolonged by more easy credit. New programs and laws will be enacted to prop up housing, all with a falling dollar, devalued by continued foreign interventions. The crisis in the housing market will spread and I’m afraid we are in for some rough economic times.
The Fed
Economic Stimulus Concerns
27 January 2008 Texas Straight Talk 27 January 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
This past week in Washington there has been much talk about the economy. It seems by their actions the leadership and the Fed is finally willing to admit we have a problem, and we need to do something about the economic mess we are in. This is a good thing. However, they are still not being honest about the root cause of our impending crisis and want to deal only with symptoms, not the disease.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
On Money, Inflation and Government
30 March 2008 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
The implicit guarantee from the Fed is quickly becoming explicit, as those institutions deemed "too big to fail" are bailed out at taxpayer expense. Wall Street made a killing during the housing bubble, reaping record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, these same firms are trying to dump their losses on the taxpayers. This approach requires more money creation, and therefore debasement of all dollars in circulation.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Bailing Out Banks
13 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about the Federal Reserve and the actions it has taken over the past few months. Many media pundits have been bending over backwards to praise the Fed for supposedly restoring stability to the market. This interpretation of the Fed's actions couldn't be further from the truth.
The Fed
Bailing Out Banks
13 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
The current market crisis began because of Federal Reserve monetary policy during the early 2000s in which the Fed lowered the interest rate to a below-market rate. The artificially low rates led to overinvestment in housing and other malinvestments. When the first indications of market trouble began back in August of 2007, instead of holding back and allowing bad decision-makers to suffer the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve took aggressive, inflationary action to ensure that large Wall Street firms would not lose money. It began by lowering the discount rates, the rates of interest charged to banks who borrow directly from the Fed, and lengthening the terms of such loans. This eliminated much of the stigma from discount window borrowing and enabled troubled banks to come to the Fed directly for funding, pay only a slightly higher interest rate but also secure these loans for a period longer than just overnight.
The Fed
Bailing Out Banks
13 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 2008 verse 4 ... Cached
After the massive increase in discount window lending proved to be ineffective, the Fed became more and more creative with its funding arrangements. It has since created the Term Auction Facility (TAF), the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF). The upshot of all of these new programs is that through auctions of securities or through deposits of collateral, the Fed is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars of funding into the financial system in a misguided attempt to shore up the stability of the system.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Bailing Out Banks
13 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
04 May 2008 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
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.
The Fed
Rising Energy Prices and the Falling Dollar
09 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 09 June 2008 verse 3 ... Cached
Part of the answer lies in understanding bubbles and monetary inflation, but especially the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling inflation through interest rate manipulation, however, many fail to realize that creating money, and therefore inflation, is really its only tool. When the Federal Reserve inflates the dollar as drastically as it has in the past few decades, the first users of the newly created money go in search of investments for their dollars. They must invest this money quickly and aggressively before it loses value. This causes certain sectors to expand beyond what would naturally occur in the free market. Eventually the sector overheats and the bubble bursts. Overinvestment in dotcoms eventually led to a collapse of the NASDAQ. Next we had the housing bubble, and now we are seeing the price of oil being bid up in the creation of another new bubble. Investors are now looking to commodities like oil, for stability and growth as they pull capital out of real estate. This increased demand for investment vehicles related to oil contributes to driving up the price of the actual product.
The Fed
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.
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.