U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | workplace |
workplace
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
6 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 49:13
This bill also contains a section authorizing special funding for programs in areas of so-called “national need” as designated by the Secretary of Education. This is little more than central planning, based on the fallacy that omnipotent “experts” can easily determine the correct allocation of education resources. However, basic economies teaches that a bureaucrat in Washington cannot determine “areas of national need.” The only way to know this is through the interaction of students, colleges, employers, and consumers operating in a free-market, where individuals can decide what higher education is deserving of expending additional resources as indicated by employer workplace demand.
workplace
National Police State
12 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 50:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
workplace
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.
workplace
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 1:4
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda. Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!
workplace
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 1:5
Some may argue that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHAs invasiveness promotes workplace safety! While it is true that workplace accidents have declined since OSHAs creation, OSHA itself has had little effect on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before OSHAs creation, thanks to improvements in safety technology and changes in the occupational distribution of labor. Workplace fatalities declined from 30 deaths per 100,000 in 1945 to 18 deaths per 100,000 in 1969, three years before OSHAs creation. In contrast to the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHAs creation, workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the 21 years after OSHAs creation.
workplace
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 1:6
OSHAs role in this decline was negligible! According to Richard Butler of the University of Minnesota, who studied National Safety Council data on workplace facility rates, OSHAs contribution to workplace fatality rates is “statistically insignificant.” This is not an isolated example; the vast majority of workplace studies show an insignificant role for OSHA in reducing workplace injuries.
workplace
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
January 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 1:7
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old “command-and control” model with one that respects the constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.
workplace
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 14:6
[Page: E189] GPO’s PDF their representative in the courtroom. Yet millions of hardworking, law-abiding citizens cannot change their representation in the workplace.
workplace
TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 71:2
* “Salts” are professional union organizers who apply for jobs solely in order to compel employers into consenting to union monopoly bargaining and forced-dues contract clauses. They do this by disrupting the workplace and drumming up so-called “unfair labor practice” charges which are designed to harass and tie up the small business person in constant and costly litigation.
workplace
Tribute To UTMB
26 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the University of Texas Medical Branch of Galveston (UTMB), Texas, which is in my congressional district, on being named by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation one of the best workplaces for commuters among colleges and universities. UTMB earned this recognition because of its efforts to improve both the environment and the quality of life for commuters. UTMB has also recently received Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need grant to support seven fellowships for nursing students who intend to teach nursing at the university level. UTMB only applied for funding for three nursing fellowships, but the Department of Education awarded UTMB funding for seven fellowships. I am sure I do not have to tell my colleagues how unusual it is for a college to be awarded more funding than they requested.
workplace
Tribute To UTMB
26 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 71:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston being named one of the best workplaces for commuters and for receiving funding for seven nursing fellowships from the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need grant program. I also extend my gratitude, on behalf of all the people of my district, for all that the people of UTMB are doing in both the field of medical research and in delivering quality health care to the people of Texas.
workplace
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.
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.