Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 !TITLE: - Offices will provide service to all parts of district !DATE: 20 December 1996 !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 1 December 20, 1996 !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 2 Offices will provide service to all parts of district !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 3 Mobile office will increase contact with congressional staff !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 4 It is hard to believe that, after more than eighteen months "on the campaign trail," the swearing in ceremony is so close at hand. I look forward to serving the people of our district in the US House of Representative and hope to be as accessible as possible. In many ways, that is what this monthly column is going to be all about. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 5 This column will be offered not only to this newspaper, but also over the World Wide Web and through fax and e-mail. Each month this column will address various pieces of legislation and issues facing the Congress. To access the congressional web site, for now use the address http://www.tgn.net/RonPaul/. That address will change in the coming months. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 6 But this month I want to take the opportunity to update the district on the status of the Congressional Offices around the district. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 7 First, we will maintain the current offices for the interim. Those are located in San Marcos, Victoria and Brazoria County. As we settle in, the Victoria office will remain open, but the Brazoria County office will move to a site closer to Surfside. Of course, a presence will be maintained in San Marcos. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 8 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. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 9 An innovative change, though, will come from the use of a "mobile" office. This office - a modified RV - will travel the district on a set schedule, opening for business at the smaller, more remote sections of the district to give individuals greater direct contact with the congressional staff than ever before. The mobile office will be able to process all the questions and inquiries the traditional offices handle, including helping people secure their Social Security and Veterans' benefits. Watch your paper for more details. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 10 Of course, our Washington office will always be available for legislative and issues-oriented questions. That number - after January 3, 1997 - will be (202) 225-2831. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 11 I and my staff are looking forward to working with each of you in your federal government. If at any time you have questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free to mail us at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC, 20515. !CITE: 122096 Texas Straight Talk 20 December 1996 verse 12 I truly appreciate the honor you have given me, and the trust you have placed in me as your elected representative in the Congress. Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 !TITLE: - Fiscal Responsibility: Balance the budget but don't raise taxes or cook the books !DATE: 20 January 1997 !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 1 January 20, 1997 !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 2 Fiscal Responsibility !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 3 Balance the budget, but don't raise taxes or cook the books !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 4 February of 1997 may well go down in history as one of the most important months in the history of the 20th Century. Important because it is very likely that both Houses of the Congress of the United States will pass an amendment to the Constitution, which is significant unto itself; but this particular amendment could have an impact which reaches far into the future. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 5 The amendment? One to require that all budgets of the United States government be balanced. On the face of it, balancing the budget is a laudable goal. In fact, a balanced budget with the elimination of our debt is one of the steps needed to ensure a sound, stable and growing economy for the 21st Century. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 6 But we must be very careful, for it is critically important that the Balanced Budget Amendment the Congress passes contains strict provisions which prohibit tax increases to accomplish the stated goal. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 7 Why? Consider this proposition. We could this year balance the budget very easily. Very easily, that is, if one does not mind paying double their current tax levy. And that is exactly what is required to balance our out-of-control spending. Can you afford that? I don't believe most of us can. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 8 Our elected officials in the House, Senate and White House have shown absolutely no hesitancy in the past hundred years to increasing taxes for almost any reason. It is difficult to believe that these same bodies would not raise taxes under a Balanced Budget Amendment without a strict Constitutionally-enforced requirement to hold them back. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 9 And the worst part is that without the prohibition against tax increases, the big-spenders would be able to say, in all honesty, that it was not they who are raising taxes, but the Constitution! !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 10 Our Founding Father, and former president, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "eternal vigilance" is the price we must pay for living in a free society. I believe he was speaking not only of watching for encroachments on our civil liberties, but our economic freedom as well. It is therefore imperative that we not allow the "hype" of amending the constitution to prevent us from addressing the very real concern that balancing the budget could come with an expanding tax rate that would place the nails in our nation's economic coffin. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 11 The other concern which must be carefully addressed is preventing the Congress from simply taking items "off budget." Already expenses like Social Security and Medicare are not stated as part of the National Debt. And it is a very easy process for the Congress to just begin moving more and more items off the budget, sidestepping a "balanced budget amendment" and causing the debt to increase. (Even without a balanced budget amendment, this practice should be abolished immediately.) !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 12 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. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 13 Of course, we want this amendment to take place immediately, not in some pie-in-the-sky future year, when none of the current elected officials will likely be around to actually implement the changes. !CITE: 012097 Texas Straight Talk 20 January 1997 verse 14 When the roll is called for House votes on the Balanced Budget Amendment, you can expect "Paul of Texas" to vote "yes" if the measure is a responsible one: achieving the necessary goal of balancing the budget by cutting wasteful, big-government programs, not by using shady accounting techniques… or by taking more hard-earned money from our pockets and our children's future. Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 !TITLE: - Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake !DATE: 20 February 1997 !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 1 February 20, 1997 !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 2 Trust funds are being robbed, hundreds of billions at stake !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 3 With highway funds and Social Security at stake, even a simple Balanced Budget Amendment could hurt !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 4 Several years ago my house was broken into, vandalized and burglarized. It was a horrible experience, knowing that someone had entered my family's home and taken those things of ours which had value to us. And then, when the criminal was caught, it was even worse because we found out he broke into homes to steal items to support his drug habit. Our valuables were not only stolen, but stolen to support a vile habit. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 5 While my family and I got over the incident, both emotionally and financially, we as a nation are going though a very similar experience. In Washington the politicians are now riffling through our belongings, stealing from us, and then using the ill-gotten gains for less than honorable purposes. Listen; you can hear another bag being stuffed with your money. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 6 But first some background. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 7 A number of years ago it was decided that establishing trust funds was a good way to earmark money for specific projects. These trust accounts would be paid into by those who use the particular service or project. For example, when a pilot fills up his plane with fuel, the tax on the fuel goes into a special trust fund. Under the law, money from the fund goes only for projects dealing with airport issues - like new runways, control towers, and radar systems. The same holds true for the canal systems, the highways, and, of course, Social Security. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 8 Of course, what the law states, and what really happens are two different things. And that is how the thief has gotten in the door and begun robbing us. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 9 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. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 10 So they started taking the money from the trust funds and replaced them with what are essentially "IOUs" from the government. Now, this is referred to as using the funds to "contribute" to the "retirement of the debt." That's a lot like the thief saying he was stealing my wife's belongings so she could "contribute" to his filthy habit. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 11 Of course, the even bigger crime is that the deficit is not being lowered and the debt is not being retired. It's like you or me running up our credit card bill in order to pay off a loan. There's no debt reduction, just a shell-game with taxpayer funds. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 12 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." !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 13 The situation with the Social Security and Disability Insurance fund is even worse because the number of dollars is even larger. Close to a half-a-trillion dollars has been taken from the trust fund. Yet the politicians talk about cutting benefits. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 14 Recently, with all the talk of a Balanced Budget Amendment, President Clinton has been edging toward a plan to take Social Security, and possibly other programs, "off-budget." He says he wants Social Security completely off-budget to protect the funds. A ridiculous claim! By allowing the president to off-budget Social Security or anything else, we will see those funds - and indeed our nation - quickly forced into insolvency as the money is used for more and more "non-trust" uses. It is simply unconscionable to allow the president, or a gang of big-spenders in Congress, to take items "off-budget" to artificially lower the publicized cost of government, or hide ill-advised financial fiascoes. And undoubtedly lead to more and more problems in the trust funds fulfilling their missions. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 15 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. !CITE: 022097 Texas Straight Talk 20 February 1997 verse 16 It must be a top priority for this new Congress to restore the integrity of the trust system and end the practice of robbing these funds. Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 !TITLE: - The worst day of the year !DATE: 20 March 1997 !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 1 March 20, 1997 !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 2 The Worst Day of the Year !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 3 Everyone is just a little apprehensive; tense, irritable. Sleepless nights have passed and everyone is well aware of what is lurking around the proverbial corner of the calendar. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 4 It's not the end of the world (though it sometimes seems that way) and it's not a natural disaster (though sometimes the results are similar). No, what is lurking around the corner is Tax Day. April 15 is a day Americans have grown to fear. Fear because it means complicated forms, a loss of money, and the very real possibility that somewhere an IRS agent may audit every aspect of someone's life. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 5 It is a very sad comment on the size of our government that we now tax and regulate (which is another form of taxation) so much that the average American now works through early July just to pay their levy. Stated a different way, the average worker spends more than half of every work day working for the government. That is unreasonable. For it means that you must work until shortly after lunch time before any money you earn actually goes to the well-being of yourself and your family. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 6 The Founding Fathers did not have this current state of taxation in mind when the high taxes of England drove them to rebellion and the creation of our nation. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 7 Right now there is little talk of doing much to cut taxes. The politicians here in Washington just don't want to use the "political capital" to address the issue. Sure, there is a lot of talk about tinkering around the edges - and if it helps people in even a small way, I am supportive - but there is little resolve to address the real problems. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 8 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. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 9 Debates over how we collect taxes - whether by a "flat tax" or a national sales tax - are interesting, but often tend to cloud the real issue. The real debate should be over the question, "Why is government this big and spending this much money?" !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 10 While I do not believe this debate will come soon and without major economic problems prompting it, I am not content to simply moan about the problem. I have signed on to several pieces of legislation which will, if passed, make a significant difference in the lives of everyone who pays taxes. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 11 The first piece of legislation is the Family Preservation Act. This legislation will repeal the Estate and Gift Taxes, which I refer to as "death taxes." These taxes are the most despicable, for the laws assume that after you have worked hard all your life, prepared for your family's future, that when you die the government has first claim to everything you own. Not only do they tax your productivity while you are alive, they tax your accumulated "after-tax" wealth once you have died, thereby punishing your spouse and children - it is as if the government owns your life, and has a fundamental right to all you have accomplished. The hardest people hit by these taxes are not the rich, but rather the middle-class Americans who own farms and ranches right here in the 14th District. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 12 A second piece of legislation I will be supporting is the Capital Gains Reduction Act. Right now, the profit someone may make off of selling a house, trading stocks or other activities, is taxed at 28 percent or higher. This bill would cut that rate in half. Again, the people hurt most by the capital gains tax are not the wealthy, but the middle and low income families. When a parent has provided for their child's future by investing for college, it is immoral that the government should be able to step in and take almost a third. The taxes paid on those gains could have paid for an extra semester, or more. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 13 A third piece of legislation I am going to be supporting may not at first glance appear to be related to tax reduction, but in fact it is intimately tied to the issue. The legislation is called the "Enumerated Powers Act," which will require that every bill brought before the Congress must contain the exact section of the Constitution which allows for that measure's existence. If a bill fails to include that citation, the bill will not be considered. The importance is this: If we followed the Constitution in the legislation presented, taxes would be only a fraction of their current level. By requiring that every bill brought before the Congress specifically cite the Constitution, it will at least force Members of Congress to consider exactly what it is they are doing. Right now, very few ever think about what gives them the power to regulate, spend and tax. !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 14 As April 15 grows near, I hope that everyone looks very closely at how much money they pay to the government - either by a check written at midnight on April 14th, or taken quietly from their paycheck each week - and then consider this question: Could the money be better used by you than the ways in which the government will use it? !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 15 The economist Adam Smith once wrote that, "The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would… assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." !CITE: 032097 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 1997 verse 16 It is my contention that you are smarter than all the politicians, especially where your life and money are concerned. Right now, the best thing government can do is cut your taxes, get out of the way, and applaud as you succeed in life and prepare for your family's future. Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 !TITLE: - Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system !DATE: 20 April 1997 !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 1 April 20, 1997 !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 2 Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 4 Imagine that you have taken a position contrary to the official dictates of the government in your nation. Instead of simply facing criticism from opposing political sides, you find your life turned upside-down; every aspect of your life is closely scrutinized. Without warning, your life savings are seized, your personal, private records divulged far and wide. Suddenly, how willing are you to continue holding your views? !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 5 It sounds almost like a slice of life from the dictatorships of the world's past or in the modern third world. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 6 Or is it? !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 7 For many years the fearful power of the Internal Revenue Service has been used in just that fashion against Americans. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 8 It's unfortunate enough that IRS employees - unfairly perhaps the most hated individuals in the nation - by the virtue of their jobs have to enforce tax policies which run contrary to our nation's notion of freedom, but what is worse is that these individuals have many times been used to carry out far less appropriate agendas for elected officials and federal bureaucrats. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 9 This tactic has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike; neither are without the sin. We know that Richard Nixon often used the IRS - or at least the threat of the IRS - to silence groups opposed to his re-election efforts. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 10 In recently released White House recordings, former President Nixon made it abundantly clear that he wanted the IRS to be cracking down on groups (like "the Jews," he said) and individuals who were contributing to the Democrats. It has recently been revealed that Mr. Nixon was planning on having the IRS investigate every member of Congress because "it worries the (expletive) out of the thieves… It really does. Even if a person isn't a thief…" !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 11 Likewise, it is becoming increasingly clear that President Clinton's White House has engaged in similar tactics. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 12 Diverse groups, ranging from small churches in Texas to the NRA, are reporting that the threat of the IRS has been held over their heads unless they repent of their often conservative views. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 13 The hypocrisy is palatable: Vice President Al Gore can go to a Buddhist Temple and hold a fundraiser without an official eye being batted. President Clinton regularly invited speaks at churches, and Jesse Jackson actually makes political fundraising speeches from pulpits, yet the IRS takes no action. The unions spend millions of dollars - without any opposition - promoting liberals and bashing conservatives. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 14 Yet conservative groups and churches have lately come under intense scrutiny by the IRS. All of them are groups which tend to hold views opposite those of the President, Vice President and the Democrats. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 15 But again, this has nothing to do with partisanship. If anything, the power of the IRS has been fairly well used and abused by members of both political parties. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 16 While looking at the countless number of cases of the IRS being used as a political tool of administrations past and present may be interesting and even instructive, we should instead be focusing on what has allowed these cases to occur. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 17 The problem is not with the IRS agents themselves, but with the policies behind the Internal Revenue Service. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 18 First, under the state of the law, the IRS is a tool of the Executive Branch, the presidency. The IRS must follow - almost without question - the orders of the executive. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 19 Second, the Internal Revenue Code is bulky, confusing and downright unintelligible: an individual of the absolute best intentions can violate major sections of the code without realizing it. The code itself makes it likely we all have violated something - we just haven't been caught. And that is preciously what keeps so many people up late into the night worrying about - what they may have unknowingly done, and what the results may be. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 20 Third, under the administrative law which governs the IRS and all other federal agencies, a person found to be violating the code must prove themselves innocent, a concept which runs contrary to our judicial system in virtually every other area of law. This has the real effect of forcing individuals to passively submit to the agency's decrees not because the individual believes they did anything wrong, but simply because they do not have the resources to prove their innocence. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 21 Taken individually, all three are bad. But when added together, the IRS becomes a recipe for disaster. Or worse. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 22 The answer is not to simply revise the code, or to make the IRS more independent, or to have an added layer of judicial review, the answer is to fundamentally change the way we collect taxes in this nation. The nonsensical body of law which governs the IRS is too far removed from sanity to be saved. And the graduated income tax system is neither fair, economically sound, moral nor useful. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 23 In my mind, the jury is still out on whether a flat tax or a national sales tax is the absolute best way to go (my main goal is for lower taxes, across-the-board), but both will go a long way toward eliminating the politically powerful weapon known as the IRS. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 24 We need not only a simpler, fairer system to eliminate the second problem I described, but also a smaller, more inexpensive agency responsible for collecting the taxes to solve the first. Finally, by making Congress directly responsible for the levy and collection of taxes - as constitutionally prescribed - the third problem vanishes by placing legal questions squarely in the hands of the legitimate federal court system. And best of all, Congressmen - the direct representatives of the people - become more accountable. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 25 There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But in fact, there is no real reason to even have an IRS. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 26 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. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 27 To paraphrase Mr. Nixon, the system treats us all like thieves, even though we aren't. !CITE: 042097 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1997 verse 28 There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But there are plenty of reasons why we should end the IRS. Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 !TITLE: - The China Syndrome: Let's not be hasty with a prescription !DATE: 20 June 1997 !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 1 June 20, 1997 !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 2 The China Syndrome: !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 3 Let's not be hasty with a prescription !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 4 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 5 As a physician I know that what might at first seem to be a cure for a particular ailment is really sometimes not a cure at all. In fact, going with a gut reaction to prescribe a cure can do more harm than the original problem. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 6 The same is true for matters of state. The initial reaction to a problem in society, or the world, will leads us to make a conclusion about a course of action. Unfortunately, that first reaction can be wrong, even though guided with the best of intentions. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 7 We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as "Most Favored Nations," or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 8 The initial reaction of our collective national psyche is to oppose MFN, to be tough, and say, "No way, no special deals for China." But is it the best solution? !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 9 To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a "special" status. In fact, MFN for a country simply means we will trade with that nation with no extraordinary barriers to their entering our marketplace. Free trade is not something to be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more than an attempt, albeit imperfect, at free trade. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 10 Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese government. But it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing what is essentially a tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the American consumer who will pay higher prices on goods which come from China due to US policy. That means higher prices on many items, but not just items which come directly from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increases, people will be forced to find replacement products. As the demand for those products increase, so will those prices. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 11 The second way it hurts Americans is the reciprocal barriers China will inevitably create. It will be almost impossible for our farmers and businessmen to sell their products there, which is why nearly every farmer and every agricultural group I have heard from supports MFN. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 12 But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN will have on the American people. Instead, they focus on the real facts that the basic rights of people the rights we as Americans declare come from God are often violated by China. And for that I defer to those who are "on the ground" in China: the missionaries. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 13 According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently discussed this topic on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, the Americans actually in China working to help the Chinese people are scared of what ending MFN might do to their efforts and the people to whom they minister. After all, ending MFN will not bring about the freedoms we hope China may confer on its people, nor will ending MFN mean more religious freedom or fewer human rights violations. In fact, those working in China to bring about positive change fear only the worst if MFN is withdrawn. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 14 "As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to travel freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors," Sirico writes. Even worse, the missionaries have been reporting that "such action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in… religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious exchanges." !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 15 And so the critical question remains: MFN, or no MFN? Ideologically, revoking MFN is a step in the wrong direction, a step away from free trade. It is equally clear that revoking MFN is harmful to our people, and harmful to the Chinese. The ones to suffer will be the very individuals we seek to help, not the powerful elite in Beijing. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 16 I have long held that governments do not solve problems, and government actions often creates more problems than existed previously. It's people who are able to bring about good change in this world, it's people who solve problems. China is indeed a problem: for us and its people. But it is a problem we can only resolve by changing the hearts of the Chinese leaders. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 17 And whether we like it our not, the way we can do that is through trade with China. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 18 By rushing quickly for the pills of government-enforced sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure China of her evil leadership. But unfortunately, those pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 19 It is only through the open dialogue of individuals that China will ever be convinced it is wrong. By closing the door now, when we have the opportunity to allow to grow the seeds of change which have been so firmly planted in China, we will be damning that nation's people to a return to their darker days. !CITE: 062097 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 1997 verse 20 We will lose the patient if we act hastily, and that cannot be option. It's never an option when I have a patient on the operating table, and it cannot be an option when dealing with China. Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 !TITLE: - Parents must have control of education !DATE: 20 July 1997 !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 1 July 20, 1997 !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 2 Parents must have control of education !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 4 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. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 5 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. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 6 An important note should be made that the fault for the lowering standards and worsening conditions in our public schools does not rest with our teachers. In fact the contrary, I am convinced our educational system would be even further in the hole were it not for the valiant efforts of our school teachers bucking the ridiculous trends and still trying to teach their students. But there is only so much they can do as the pressures mount from Washington for schools to conform to the models developed by federal bureaucrats and university professors who have never taught in a classroom. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 7 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." !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 8 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. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 9 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. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 10 So the real challenge for us is determining how to rescue our school kids from the clutches of the federal education bureaucrats. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 12 I am confident that day will come, for history has shown us that big, centralized government systems always collapse. But until that days arrives we cannot sacrifice our children. In order to ensure our children and grandchildren are receiving the education they need, parents must be able to consider options for their kids other than, or in addition to, the government schools. But realistically, tutoring sessions, home schooling and private schools are options far out of reach for many people, simply because of the cost. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 13 As such I am proud to be sponsoring legislation which will give parents an unprecedented amount of control (in recent history) over their child's education. The legislation is called the Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 14 This bill will provide up to $3,000 in tax credits per child, per year, for every American family. Parents will be eligible for the tax credit whether their kids are in public schools, private schools, church schools, or are home schooled. The tax credit can apply toward items such as after-school tutoring, purchasing a computer and educational software, tuition and the cost of books and materials, and almost anything else which the parents believe will enhance their child's education. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 15 I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents - consulting with teachers and local administrators - to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government. !CITE: 072097 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1997 verse 16 And that is a philosophy of which we are in desperate need not just for the next generation, but also today. Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 !TITLE: - Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government !DATE: 18 August 1997 !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 1 August 18, 1997 !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 2 Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitutional form of government !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 4 While Congress is not in session for the month of August, important business does continue in Washington. Even though I'm in Texas for the month, I am intrigued by an historic event of the past week: Bill Clinton became the first US President to wield the line-item veto -- a power which I believe is a major stain on the legacy of the so-called conservative revolution of the 104th Congress, two years ago. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 5 The Constitution makes it very clear how the legislative process is to work if we are following the law of the land. Of course, the Constitution is the law of the land, or at least it is supposed to be. According to Article 1, Section 7, of the Constitution, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives... every bill which shall have passed the House of Representative[s] and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President... if he approve[s], he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections..." !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 6 According to the Constitution, the president must review legislation brought to him as an all-or-nothing deal. He is not free to create or change legislation passed through the two Houses of Congress. Under the Constitution, if the president doesn't like a portion of legislation, he may freely veto the entire measure and then work to convince Members of Congress to remove or change the portion he finds objectionable. This is completely constitutional. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 7 But under the Constitution-circumventing power given the executive branch by Congress two years ago, a president can (at least according to legislative edict) strike single lines or portions of legislation and set the revised law into effect without the consent of Congress. If two-thirds of Congress does not object -- and it is almost impossible to imagine finding two-thirds of the Congressional members who agree on anything of substance -- the president's version of the law stands. This line-item veto process is the kind of absolute power our founders sought to escape, not embrace. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 8 The direction this newly-created power takes us is 180-degrees off course; it is completely misguided and only further undermines the Constitution. The line-item veto consolidates too much power in the hands of the President, giving him excessive legislative power. The Constitution makes it clear that the president is only allowed to approve or disapprove entire pieces of legislation. The line-item veto opens the door for a president to do much more. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 9 The line-item veto gives the president a whole new way to pressure members of congress and senators. It gives the president the opportunity to lobby for his particular piece of legislation with the threat that if the member does not vote for what he wants, the president will line-item veto something important to that member. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 10 On April 15 of this year, I addressed the House of Representatives to oppose the line-item veto. As I told my colleagues, I was pleased to have been able to serve in Congress for four terms in the '70s and early 80s. During that time I was lobbied on a few occasions by presidents regarded as much more conservative than the current holder of that office. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 11 The only time either of these presidents ever called me was when asking me to vote for more spending or taxation. Never have I experienced or heard of a president actually calling Congressmen and asking them to vote for less spending or less taxation. So I see the line-item veto as something a president can actually use to enhance or increase spending, not to reduce spending. Increasing spending and taxation was not, the stated intent behind passing the law in the first place, in fact, it was the opposite. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 12 Fortunately for our nation, I do not expect this issue to simply fade into the arsenal of power held by the president. One court challenge has only recently ended, with the people who brought the suit being told they had no case simply because the line-item veto had not yet be used, so no one had been injured and in need of judicial redress. The Constitution requires that an actual case or controversy exist prior to judicial consideration. This constitutional requirement will, however, be met and I will be quite surprised if those negatively affected by the president's use of the line item veto do not challenge the process as unconstitutional. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 13 Sadly, though, regardless of what the courts end up saying, the mere granting of this power has shaken our constitutional heritage of separated powers. The separation of powers in our nation is the hallmark of our form of government, and one attempt by the founders to safeguard individual liberty. The Constitution, and the arrangement of power in federal government, was designed deliberately and specifically and we must respect it, or risk jeopardizing the very foundations of our nation. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 14 Congress acted improperly during the 104th Congress when giving this power to the presidency. Under the Constitution, it is Congress which has the responsibility to craft legislation, not this president, not a Republican president, not any president. Like the creation of administrative agencies, it is a means by which members of Congress have chosen to evade their responsibility as lawmakers and created scapegoats for the seemingly never-ending growth of liberty-oppressive government. !CITE: 081897 Texas Straight Talk 18 August 1997 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 !TITLE: - Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty !DATE: 25 August 1997 !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 1 August 25, 1997 !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 2 Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 4 Congress has not been in session during the month of August and I have absolutely enjoyed being able to spend so much time in Texas. I've been pleased to discuss not only what Congress as a whole has been doing but also what I specifically am working on. I have introduced eight pieces of legislation, and am cosponsoring 87 others. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 5 This week I will describe two of the measures I have introduced, both of which have a direct impact on the lives of us all. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 6 The first is HR 2029, the Selective Service Registration Privacy Act. Put succinctly, this legislation will prohibit Clinton's Americorps program from using any Selective Service Administration resources, including draft registration information. Current law requires 18-year-old males to register with Selective Service. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 7 Americorps is a program which should have never come into existence, it is simply an unconstitutional government expenditure. The Americorps program has absolutely no constitutional basis, no rational economic basis, and no pragmatic basis; it is simply another program aimed at making more people dependent on government largess, at the expense of the hard-working taxpayers. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 8 But what we have today is not nearly as bad as what the president and his friends have indicated they hope it will become. First, the president has proposed the "Service to America Initiative' which would allow Americorps to use Selective Service resources to promote his brand of federally subsidized, so-called 'volunteerism' in Americorps. To use Selective Service, ostensibly a program designed to enhance our national security, as a means to bolster President Clinton's liberal, failing Americorps is completely ridiculous. And it sets a dangerous precedent. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 9 Letting Americorps get its foot in the door of the Selective Service system now is troubling by what it could portend for the future. I absolutely do not want my grandsons to be drafted into Americorps' "national volunteer service" and be sent to distribute needles in some drug-infested urban area, or be forced to pick-up trash in the national parks, but that is exactly where this could lead; and what the social liberals want. Already the president and his cronies have warped the meaning of the word "volunteer" by instigating this program, and we see school districts around the nation requiring volunteerism or public service as a condition of graduation It is not at all unlikely that this same social-planning crew will try to mandate that all kids 'volunteer' with Americorps. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 10 HR 2029 has been sent to my committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, as well as the National Security Committee. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 11 While we are waiting on an opportunity to stop Americorps, we can not allow this new "back door" attempt to strengthen it to slip by us. If we do not stop these two programs from merging, I believe our attempt to end Americorps will become more and more difficult as time wears on. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 12 The second piece of legislation I will discuss this week is HR 1121, the Financial Freedom Act. This legislation will directly affect every American who does business with a credit union or a bank. Over the years banks and credit unions have rightly perceived that they are disparately burdened by federal regulations and taxation, and have seen any relief for their 'competitors' as harmful to their own business. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 13 However, the answer is not to increase the level of regulation or taxes on one or the other, but to instead lower the taxes and regulations on both. My legislation helps both ends of the industry by cutting government regulation and taxes on each type of institution. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 14 For the banks, HR 1121 ends the Community Reinvestment Act and lowers federal taxes; for the credit unions, the common and multiple membership bonds are expanded. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 15 But the biggest winner is the consumer, who benefits either way: with fewer regulations and lower taxes consumers will see savings in their banking costs, while the needed flexibility for credit unions will give individuals greater choices in their financial dealings as competition between institutions increases. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 16 The Financial Freedom Act is a step in the right direction, the direction of cutting taxes and regulations to the benefit of all Americans, regardless of where they live, how much money they make, or how they manage their finances. And while cutting taxes and regulations is always the morally and constitutionally correct position to take, this legislation has the added effect of being a direct, financially positive benefit to every American. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 17 The role of government is to protect life and liberty from initiations of force or fraud. By preventing government from drafting our children into a system of social engineering, and by reducing the unconstitutional barriers to financial freedom, these two pieces of legislation take a step in the direction our nation must head; the direction of individual liberty. !CITE: 082597 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 18 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 !TITLE: - Constitution must always be considered !DATE: 01 September 1997 !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 1 September 1, 1997 !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 2 Constitution must always be considered !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 3 When Congress ignores law, it encourages lawlessness !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 4 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 5 Congress was in recess the entire month of August, but is returning to session this week to tackle two pieces of legislation, including an amendment I am introducing. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 6 The first bill to be considered will be the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 1998. Congress began work on this measure back in July, but tabled it until now to avoid some partisan wrangling. This measure includes funding for such unconstitutional programs as overseas corporate welfare for big US corporations, funding for Bosnia activities, the UN's so-called peace-keeping missions in Sinai and Cyprus, and a wide variety of direct foreign aide packages. I introduced an amendment in July, which was voted down, to abolish some of the corporate welfare included in the measure. That amendment alone would have saved taxpayers more than $700 million dollars. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 7 The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also includes funding of so-called family planning and international population control activities, both of which are, in reality, back-door methods of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide. More than $385 million of US taxpayers' money is being spent on these programs. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 8 It is in response to this portion of the "Foreign Ops" Act that I am introducing an amendment to be voted on this week to zero-out all taxpayer funding for international family planning activities, population control activities, and, of course, abortion services. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 9 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. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 10 The second piece of legislation to be considered this week will be the 1998 appropriations bill for the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. These departments, and their related agencies, are entirely unconstitutional, have been completely ineffective, and when one looks at their stated goals they are in fact destructive. This appropriations act will spend at least $80 billion to continue funding these departments, and the systematic attack on the constitutional principles their existence represents. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 12 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. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 13 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. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 14 I swore an oath to uphold and follow the Constitution. It's an oath I take seriously because when a congressman violates the Constitution and spends money on programs not authorized, a great deal of harm is done. In the first place, harm is done directly to the individual taxpayer because the fruit of his labor is wrongly taken from him. Second, harm is done by the way the money is spent, almost always violating the rights of states and the liberties of people. Finally, harm is done to our society as we hypocritically throw to the wind the notion that Congress is bound by any law. How can Congress expect individuals to follow the laws created on Capitol Hill, when Congress doesn't follow the law as embodied in the Constitution? !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 15 The real challenge before Congress as we come out of this August recess is not to be found in the specifics of each piece of legislation, but rather by addressing the issues before the nation in the light of the Constitution. !CITE: 090197 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 !TITLE: - Congress to tackle Education budget this week !DATE: 08 September 1997 !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 1 September 8, 1997 !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 2 Congress to tackle Education budget this week !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 4 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. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 5 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. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 6 I was pleased that 146 of my fellow congressmen voted for the constitutionally and morally correct position, but our side of the issue did not have enough to win. But I'm not discouraged because we were able to change the debate and make people think about whether they wanted to vote for morality, constitutional government and less spending, or for more big spending on unconstitutional programs. Maybe next time we will have more support. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 7 Unfortunately, the House then overwhelmingly voted to pass the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. I voted against the measure not only because it includes the funding for population control, family planning and abortions, but also because this act called for spending more money on the so-called "peace-keeping" missions around the world. I cannot in good conscience vote to put the lives of our troops in very real danger for purposes that have nothing to do with our national defense. It's time to end our involvement in these activities and protect and support our troops, not open them up to more and more hostility and danger for no good reason. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 8 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. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 9 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. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 10 Additionally, the Labor and Education Appropriations Act is easy to vote against because of it's inclusion of continued spending for what is commonly called "Title X." This section of the bill includes the funding for the availability of birth control devices , sex education and "services" to minors in our public schools. A large portion of the money appropriated in this act actually goes to the pro-abortion advocacy organization Planned Parenthood. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 11 Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, sex education or even the distribution of birth control devices to children, the real issue is that the Constitution simply does not allow Congress to spend tax dollars in this way. If we are serious about wanting to balance the budget, cut taxes and restore personal liberty, Congress does not need to pass new laws, new taxes or new spending. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 12 Balancing the budget, cutting taxes and restoring personal liberty is easy: Congress just needs to follow the Constitution. !CITE: 090897 Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 13 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 !TITLE: - If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve !DATE: 15 September 1997 !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 1 September 15, 1997 !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 2 If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 4 Last week, Congress met and debated the Labor-Health-Education Appropriations legislation. That debate will continue through this week. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 5 During debate last week an amendment was offered to prohibit the use of federal funds to perform abortions or offer various contraceptive devices to minors, if parents are not notified. The real debate on this point is not one of the rights of children versus the rights of parents, or even the question of whether federal money being spent this way -which constitutionality it obviously should not. The real debate is to what extent strings may be attached to federal funds. If the government is going to fund an unconstitutional program which should not exist anyway, then at the very least Congress should add sensible requirements for the sake of accountability. Doctors and nurses cannot even give out even an aspirin to a child without parental consent, mainly for fear of liability. And the government should do no less. If parents want their children to have ready access to birth control devices, then the parents should pay for it. But if the government is going to force us, the taxpayers, to subsidize these programs, then at the very least we should have a reasonable expectation that we - as taxpayers - are not going to be held accountable for any problems which may result from a child being given unlimited, uncontrolled access to various items paid for by the government. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect parents to assume liability for complications resulting from actions over which they are no allowed no control. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 6 Unfortunately, the amendment was narrowly defeated. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 7 This past week also gave me the opportunity to testify about my education legislation, HR 1816. This bill gives parents the ability to take tax credits for up to $3,000 per year per child for education and education related expenses. This legislation has the benefit of imposing no cost to the taxpayers, and contains no federal "strings." It simply means people get to keep their own money, and spend it on the educational needs appropriate to their own child, rather than sending that money off to Washington bureaucrats and their failed, one-size-fits-all approach to government. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 8 This week, I will be introducing two very important pieces of legislation. There has been a lot of talk around Washington and the nation about reforming our system of campaigning. Unfortunately a lot of this talk has centered around violating the Constitution, and especially the first amendment. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 9 The two items I will be introducing on Tuesday embrace rather than disgrace the first amendment. The first is called the Voter Freedom Act of 1997. It will prohibit states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to control federal elections, and I firmly believe that the more voices participating, the more likely it is that the entrenched, out-of-touch, Washington establishment will be swept to the side. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 10 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. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 11 In many ways, the bottom-line is this: if a person or group is going to voluntarily take the taxpayers' money, then the recipient - whether a candidate running for president or a clinic handing out condoms - is going to have to be accountable and play by the rules the taxpayers set and deserve. !CITE: 091597 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 12 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 !TITLE: - Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it !DATE: 22 September 1997 !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 1 September 22, 1997 !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 2 Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 4 The headlines around the nation last week served to further indicate the extent to which the Congress is truly out-of- touch with the people. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 5 In addition to passing the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, the Congress voted to pass the Treasury and Postal Operations Appropriations Act. This bill appropriated $1.3 billion more than the respective appropriation for the most recent fiscal year. In addition to funding the IRS at $7.6 billion, (that's an 8% increase over last year's funding), the bill also included 97 million dollars for the Treasury Department's "Violent Crime Reduction Programs" despite the fact that criminal law enforcement is a matter reserved to state and local governments by the ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say, this is a bill I opposed for constitutional reasons. Additionally, I want the IRS eliminated, not given more taxpayer money with which to further harass taxpayers. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 6 It wasn't, however, the IRS budget increase which caught the fancy of newspaper editors and American citizens. Rather, it was the failure by Congress to follow its recent trend of invalidating its automatic cost-of-living pay-raise increase of 2.3 percent. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 7 Under reforms passed by Congress in 1989, Congress was automatically given a cost-of-living adjustment, at a rate ½ of one percent below all other federal employees. Every year since 1989, Congress has voted to disallow its COLA pay increase. This year, the leadership of both parties evidently decided Congress should get this pay raise so the appropriation came to the House floor for a vote under a rule forbidding an amendment to stop the "automatic" increase could be offered. This situation further strengthened my justifications for voting against the entire measure in the first place. Congressmen currently are paid $133,600 annually with a massive, lucrative taxpayer funded pension program, in which I do not participate. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 8 Unfortunately for the taxpayer, many members of Congress evidently believed the IRS was deserving of even more of your money and the House passed this appropriations bill. The bill will also be considered by the Senate where there is some opposition to the de facto pay raise. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 9 Sadly, though, there seems to be no real opposition in the Senate to increasing the IRS budget. There is a lot of talk about IRS reform, yet Congress increases its budget while the media diverts our attention. Unfortunately we are not on the verge of true IRS reform. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 10 This week Congress will be considering several pieces of legislation, including HR 901, a measure I have co-sponsored. Entitled "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act," HR 901 takes a laudable step toward reaffirmation of the constitutional tenet that only Congress has the authority to make rules and regulations regarding federally-owned land, and not the powerful independent agencies. And now we even have to be concerned about the international government bodies like the UN. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 12 A lot of politicians in Washington worry about the public's perception of their performance. The politicians need to realize that only by cutting agencies like the IRS, not giving themselves sneaky pay raises, and actually passing constitutional legislation, will the public ever do more than shake their heads in disgust at the day-to-day operations of Congress. !CITE: 092297 Texas Straight Talk 22 September 1997 verse 13 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 !TITLE: - Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process !DATE: 29 September 1997 !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 1 September 29, 1997 !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 2 Corporate welfare must be stopped; troops in Bosnia unconstitutional !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 4 Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 5 Last week Congress continued to consider the various appropriations bills to fund the agencies and departments of the federal government. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 6 Included in the bills considered by the House last week was the conference report on the Defense Department appropriation for the coming year. In addition to spending more than $5 billion more than the last fiscal year, this budget continues funding for the UN mission in Bosnia. Sure, the appropriation bill contained a sentence or two asking, in a very soft way, that our troops be pulled out by mid-1998 - but even this weak request provides loopholes so that the president may continue US involvement in the UN Bosnia operation. We've been hearing promises of extracting our troops "in six months" for two years now, and yet American soldiers are still in the middle of a dangerous conflict in which we do not have a legitimate basis for intervening. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 7 It's almost criminal that we're spreading thin our troops around the globe, putting them dangerously in harms' way, for no national security reasons. Our nation is made weaker by letting the UN commandeer our troops. We need to get our troops back under our command, withdraw them from these regional conflicts, and concentrate on protecting our borders and not policing the world. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 8 Also this past week there was an amendment to the State Department appropriation which would have cut $54 million from the payment to the United Nations, because the UN owes the US for non-reimbursed expenses. While the big government advocates won, the measure did receive 165 votes. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 9 I've started to think that if I cannot have my way and see the UN go the way of the dinosaur, then I think we need to see the UN funded completely by the voluntary contributions of individuals. And ironically, it was Ted Turner who, having made his fortunes in broadcasting, led the way this week by committing $1 billion to the anti-capitalism UN. If the UN must exist, then at the very least the American public shouldn't be forced to subsidize the organization which is diametrically opposed to US interests at every turn. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 10 This week the Congress has a full plate, including legislation re-authorizing the Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im. The Ex-Im is one of the mechanisms by which politicians are able to use your tax money to subsidize the actions of big, multinational corporations. Besides being unconstitutional, the Ex-Im Bank runs contrary to free market economics. It is unreasonable that taxpayers should be forced to foot the bill for funding risky ventures by big business. The Ex-Im Bank is the welfare engine for corporate America, paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer. The supporters of Ex-Im readily admit taxpayers have subsidized more than $100 billion of big-business deals in this decade alone. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 11 Under existing law, if the Ex-Im Bank is not re-authorized by midnight, September 30, it will vanish. If it is re-authorized, we'll have to continue putting up with the corporate welfare of Ex-Im until 2001. Rest assured I will be voting "no." !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 12 It's time we stopped corporate welfare, and while my position is not very popular on Capitol Hill, I have been committed for many, many years to leading the charge against this immoral fraud, and I will continue to do so. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 13 Whether the issue is subsidizing the socialists at the United Nations and their stupid wars, or covering the tail of corporate America, the US Congress needs to stop using your federal tax money on programs and activities - no matter how well intentioned or how long they have been in effect - which are not authorized by the Constitution. Just as sending our troops to fight in the undeclared wars of the UN is unconstitutional, so is forcing you to work hard to pay taxes that go to pad the pockets of corporate America as they ships jobs overseas. !CITE: 092997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 14 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 !TITLE: - US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution !DATE: 06 October 1997 !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 1 October 6, 1997 !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 2 US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 4 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. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 5 So I suppose I could say I have good news and bad news this week. The good news is, the Ex-Im Bank no longer exists. The bad news is, Congress just changed its name - but the unconstitutional functions remain, despite the fact the bank is now technically out of "authorization." According to the legislation which created the corporate welfare mechanism we know as the Ex-Im Bank, the organization had to be re-authorized by midnight, September 30. But because of partisan wrangling over who is the bigger violator of campaign finance laws, the re-authorizing legislation was not considered. So while Congress will likely vote the bank back into official existence this week, for at least a couple days we are technically without Ex-Im. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 6 The Congress did vote, as an amendment to the Export-Import re-authorization, to rename the organization the "United States Export Bank," or USEX. Subsidizing big corporations is unconstitutional and violative of the laws of free-market economics, no matter what Congress calls the mechanism. Those who are addicted to corporate welfare have no need to worry; USEX will be doing the same thing as Ex-Im. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 7 For several weeks there has been a lot of talk about a piece of legislation entitled the "Freedom from Religious Persecution Act." And while it is not yet coming to the floor for a vote, it is worthy of discussion at this time as some are referring to this legislation as a panacea to the problems faced by Christians and others living under totalitarian regimes. On its face, the legislation is innocuous enough; after all, who can be against stopping religious persecution? After reading the legislation as it is being proposed, I cannot help but wonder who is persecuting whom. This legislation calls for a whole new bureaucracy to be created at the White House, giving the president broad new powers to determine what is and is not persecution, and to impose sanctions against those countries he finds offending. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 8 The legislation cites for its justification not the Constitution, but various international agreements. It then authorizes the president to take action, without the approval of Congress, against countries he thinks are violating rights to religious freedom. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 9 In addition, the legislation prohibits federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting goods to citizens within countries whose governments either engage in or tolerate "religious persecution." There is great concern from many in the religious community that these kinds of restrictions would prohibit American missionaries from taking Bibles and humanitarian items into those named countries - the opposite of what needs to occur if we seriously want to see positive changes in the nations persecuting their citizens for religious reasons. Several issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant discussion and debate, including constitutional authority and the morality of rights "swapping." !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 10 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. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 11 Neither, of course, does the Constitution allow us to subsidize foreign governments through such taxpayer-supported entities as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, Ex-Im/USEX or any number of other vehicles through which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries (including those who engage in religious persecution). It is time we stopped both policing the world, and funding the totalitarian thugs of planet. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 12 As to the effectiveness of trade sanctions reforming human rights records, the trade embargo imposed on Cuba for the past thirty years serves as a good example of the lack of the effectiveness of such a policy. According to Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who recently discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries operating in offending countries actual favor economic relationships over isolation, and see engagement as the policy most likely to bring about positive change. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 13 While basic human rights must include free religious exercise, those rights must also include the right to associate with others. To prohibit individuals from the U.S. from meeting and trading with the individual citizens of foreign countries - in the name of "protecting" human rights - is inconsistent with the goal we all hope to achieve. It is only by changing the hearts of those nations' leaders that religious persecution will end. And it is only by allowing our missionaries and businessmen unfettered access to those countries that we will see those leaders influenced for the better. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 14 Perhaps the most important flaw to this legislation is the basic presumption that the US government should be meddling in the affairs of other governments. Under our Constitution, we as individuals have the right, and I would argue even a moral obligation, to right wrongs in the world around us;, but our government, under the Constitution, has no such authority. What if England had had a law like this in place in 1993 during the Waco debacle? How would we as Americans have reacted when the British government banned all our goods from being sold in the United kingdom because of the actions of our federal government against a religious minority? We would have been outraged. Can we expect less from anyone else? I think we should be very careful about casting stones. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 15 It is ironic that the same federal government which killed innocent children at Waco for their parents "odd" religious beliefs, now proclaims itself ready to judge the world's nations on their religious tolerance. !CITE: 100697 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 !TITLE: - FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same !DATE: 13 October 1997 !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 1 October 13, 1997 !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 2 FDA bill was no reform !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 3 Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 4 A lot of people ask me if I believe Congress has overcome the late-night, no-warning legislative maneuverings which for so long characterized both the House and the Senate. I would really like to say it has, but events of the past week prove otherwise. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 5 Out of nowhere last week came the stealth "Prescription Drug User Fee Re-authorization and Drug Regulatory Modernization Act." This bill was passed not only without opportunity for responsible debate, but even without a recorded vote. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 6 According to its supporters, this FDA-strengthening bill was more than three years in the making -- a so-called compromise between industry, the Clinton Administration, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress, we are told. Yet, despite the fact the legislation encompassed 177 pages of text, making broad changes to an administrative agency and its powers, the House leadership did not see fit to warn Members of Congress that this bill was coming to the House Floor for a vote. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 7 When I decided to try to draw attention to the broad-sweeping nature of the bill - and the process by which it had come up for consideration - I was told by the bill's proponents that "there is no time available to speak about the bill." Instead, Congress and C-SPAN viewers were treated to a "love-fest" during which each of the bill's drafters and advocates commended one another for doing a fine job of bestowing on the American citizenry yet one more blow to liberty in favor of corporatism and internationalism. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 8 When a 177-page bill comes to floor with practically nothing more than one-hour notice, one can very safely assume that buried not-to-deeply in those pages are oppressive, freedom-depriving regulations about to be forced upon the citizens. And sure enough, this measure was no different. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 9 This now-passed FDA bill requires that the US, through various international agreements, "harmonize regulation . . . and seek appropriate reciprocal arrangements" with foreign regulatory agencies. Opponents of this harmonization language correctly argue this "internationalizing" is very likely to limit the availability of food supplements by requiring prescriptions for dispensation as is the case in certain parts of Europe. Now remember, much of what the FDA does is already an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights, now this measure allows foreign governments to usurp the rights of American consumers. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 10 Perhaps with such "harmonization," we will not only have a federal war on drugs, but a federal war on riboflavin, folic acid, and bee pollen. Soon, all Americans will be safe because we will have a federal police force dedicated to ending the use of alfalfa! !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 11 Food supplement availability may be the least of concerns among those who still revere states' rights and acknowledge the continued existence of the tenth amendment, but one section of the legislation, "prohibits states and subdivisions from regulating food, drugs, or cosmetics . . ." The bill permits the FDA to set national standards for cosmetics but it does permit states to issue warning labels and take defective products of the shelves. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 12 To the dismay of medical privacy advocates, the bill goes so far as to authorize the FDA to track patients who use certain medical devices for up to 36 months, and even to conduct post-market surveillance of these patients. Just think, a formerly overweight patient may be followed by an FDA agent to make sure they don't regain the weight a few years later. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 13 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. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 14 A bill making major changes to the Food and Drug Administration, and with such serious implications for individual liberties and for states' ability to effectuate their constitutionally-ordained police powers, warrants something more than the stealth procedure by which this regulatory "bomb" was been brought to the house floor. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 15 Unfortunately, the names and faces of the leadership may have changed in Congress, but there is no reason to think the way Congress operates has really changed at all. Until we have Members of Congress dedicated to preserving liberty and following the Constitution, we can expect more of these shenanigans to occur. !CITE: 101397 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 !TITLE: - Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats! !DATE: 20 October 1997 !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 1 October 20, 1997 !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 2 Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats! !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 3 Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 4 A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 5 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. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 6 The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 7 Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, the surge in the number of armed federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new federal agents were authorized to carry firearms. This brings the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these increases were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife department, and the Army Corps of Engineers. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 8 According to Farah, even the Bureau of Land Management wants to be armed. Farah logically asks, "When will the (National Endowment for the Arts) have its armed art cops?" This is a dangerous, and ironic, trend. Ironic in that the proliferation of guns for bureaucrats is being so firmly - though admittedly stealthily - pushed by the same antigun politicians who publicly work to disarm every law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety. Which begs the question, "Safety for whom?" !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 9 On one level I agree whole-heartily with the anti-gun activists. We desperately need gun control: we need to control the bureaucrats, disarm them, and then abolish their agencies. There is no constitutional basis for the EPA, and certainly no constitutional reason for allowing EPA agents to pack pistols as they declare every inch of your property a protected "wetland." !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 10 Force and intimidation are the preferred tools of tyrants, though not just intimidation with government guns. The threat of imprisonment and fear of harassment by government agents strikes terror into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit against the president, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for their 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current "year" for which the IRS is conducting audits of returns, the government claim that the action is unrelated to the suit is suspect, to say the least. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 12 I tend to agree with Charlton Heston, who recently said that the Constitution's Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk. !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 13 A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact, it's a shame our generation has ignored it !CITE: 102097 Texas Straight Talk 20 October 1997 verse 14 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 !TITLE: - By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax !DATE: 27 October 1997 !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 1 October 27, 1997 !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 2 By Any Other Name, A Tax Is Still A Tax !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 4 Taxes took the forefront last week on Capitol Hill, as Congress again voted to increase them, while I introduced legislation to cut taxes and signed a pledge to abolish the IRS. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 5 A short time watching Congress makes it clear that the favorite scam on Capitol Hill is "bait-and-switch." Last week, they baited America with meager education reform, and switched it out with a tax increase. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 6 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. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 7 I prefer to let parents have the control in deciding what education options are best for their kids. I introduced HR1816, which will let moms and dads claim up to $3,000 per year per child in tax credits to pay for their kids education and education-related expenses. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 8 While my legislation is still working its way through the committee process, I signed on as an original cosponsor to a bill to let parents create special education savings accounts with tax-free interest. While this legislation was not as strong as I would have liked, I favor anything that gives parents more control over education. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 9 But in the process of bringing the bill to the floor, the House leadership altered the legislation, adding language which, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will increase taxes by more than a billion dollars over the next two years. The bill increases taxes by overturning a taxpayer-friendly tax court ruling on how businesses are taxed on pay-outs for employee vacation time. In short, the employer pays more taxes, the employee gets less money, and we all pay the cost in the prices at the cash register. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 10 When I found out about this scam, I immediately took to the House floor to decry the measure and the process. When I finished speaking, another congressman, without blinking, proclaimed that this was "not a tax increase" but rather an increase in "government revenue." Calling a tax increase a method of increasing government revenue may be soothing to the politicians, but it does nothing to help the taxpayer who shoulder the burden no matter what it is called. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, a tax, by any other name, still costs the taxpayers their living. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 11 Sadly, the revised measure passed, and while there might be a few people who benefit from the barely-positive portion of the bill, Congress managed to raise taxes by over a billion dollars over the next two years. And that will hurt us all. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 12 While Congress was voting to increase taxes, I took it upon myself to draft and introduce legislation to repeal the Clinton tax increase on Social Security benefits. Back in 1993, President Clinton and his willing allies in Congress increased the taxes senior citizens pay on Social Security benefits. Republicans correctly balked and even made repealing this measure a popular part of their 1994 Contract with America. But the repeal never got off the ground. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 13 So now, some four years after saddling seniors with this oppressive tax, I introduced the Social Security Beneficiaries Tax Reduction Act. My legislation very simply repeals the Clinton tax increase. The Clinton is bad in many ways, but especially when you realize that they force us to pay into the Social Security system, which the politicians mismanage, they dictate to us when we can retire and utilize those funds, and finally they tax those very benefits. It is essentially taxation on our taxes. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 14 But I'm not content to stop there. I want to give all Americans big tax relief by cutting taxes significantly and across-the-board. I signed a pledge this past week to vote to abolish the IRS and the income tax. Abolishing the IRS and income tax must be immediate priorities, and I am committed to slaying these two beasts. Our people and our economy need not only a much lower level of taxation, but a lower level of government spending. If we only abolish the income tax and do nothing to cut government spending, in the long run nothing will have been gained. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 15 While I pledge to vote to abolish the IRS and income tax at the first opportunity, I also pledge that at every step along the way, with every vote I cast, to cut government spending. !CITE: 102797 Texas Straight Talk 27 October 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 !TITLE: - IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution !DATE: 03 November 1997 !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 1 November 3, 1997 !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 2 IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 3 By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 4 When Congress convenes this week, two items are sure to get a lot of attention. One represents a further blow to our constitutional government, while the second is a token, symbolic wave at the IRS. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 5 I strongly oppose HR 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act, also known as "fast-track." Constitutionally, treaties are the responsibility of the President to negotiate and the Senate to ratify by a two-thirds majority. During the constitutionally proscribed process, the Senate can make changes to sections it finds offensive or improper. As such, the role of the House of Representatives in the treaty process should be a relatively meager one. They try to get around this by claiming that these "agreements" are somehow different from constitutionally described treaties; but that is only so much fast-talk. In practice, a treaty and these agreements are the same thing. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 6 Under "fast-track," the president still negotiates measures with foreign governments, then, if he has declared it necessary for trade, the agreement goes before the entire Congress, both the House and Senate. However, there are strict limits on debate -- and therefore opposition -- and there is no opportunity for Congress to make any changes. Further, this legislation forces the trade agreements to be placed as the highest priority on Congress’ schedule. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 7 Fast-track is the process by which our nation was saddled with the harmful North American Free Trade Agreement. I favor the notion of removing trade barriers, and the quickening of the process by which these barriers can be eradicated. But free trade does not require massive NAFTA-like documents which impose extensive government regulatory burdens upon citizens of signatory countries. Free trade agreements should be far less complex, bilateral, and not require formation of international bodies for their enforcement. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 8 The second piece of legislation which is going to be making headlines this week will be HR 2292, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 9 I think there are few issues more important than ridding our nation of the income tax and the IRS. The basic premise of the income tax is that government has first claim on everything we as individuals do, a complete contradiction to our national heritage. From that premise comes the IRS, which has been publicly unveiled as perhaps the most oppressive agency operating in our government today. The IRS can seize people’s homes, bank accounts and property, all under mere suspicion or wrong-doing, without proof. Using the complex intricacies of the tax code, the IRS can justify penalizing anyone, for anything, for it is almost impossible for anyone to be in complete and total compliance with the endless laws and bureaucratic rules. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 10 And so when someone comes forward with a proposal to reform and restructure the IRS, attention must be paid. I’m hopeful this legislation will be more than just symbolism, the people want real change. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 11 Last week a high school junior from Fayetteville, located in the center of my district, was in Washington for a youth conference. He stopped by the office and we had the opportunity to visit about his plans and questions. At one point I asked him what he thought the biggest concerns were in the minds of his parents. Without hesitation, or even a moment of thought, he responded with a single word: taxes. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 12 He went on to explain that even he, as a 16-year-old working at a summer job, had come to see taxes as one of the biggest problems Americans face. He said that while he was making about $6 an hour working in a machinist shop, he would be horrified when he got his paycheck and saw that more than a hundred dollars would be removed each week to pay for the multitude of federal taxes. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 13 When I told him that most people work half the year just to pay taxes, he wasn’t even phased. He had seen what the politicians in Washington refuse to see: government is taking too much of our money. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 14 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. !CITE: 110397 Texas Straight Talk 03 November 1997 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 !TITLE: - Communist China shouldn't be financed by US !DATE: 10 November 1997 !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 1 November 10, 1997 !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 2 Communist China shouldn't be financed by US !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 3 Congress takes steps towards implementing Paul's China policy By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 4 Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 5 Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largess of the Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US taxpayers cash into Beijing's coffers. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 6 I was pleased to introduce a piece of legislation several months ago which would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only 37 Republicans and three Democrats supported my measure. Apparently, the Congress just wasn't willing to take that big of a step in ending US support of the Communist reign of terror. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 7 But this past week, Congress took a few, very small, baby-steps in the direction I have long advocated. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 8 Of the numerous measures which came before the House of Representatives late in the week, perhaps the best was one discussed and voted upon Thursday night. While it was not as strong as the measure I introduced, by passing overwhelmingly, it signals a changing attitude in Congress. Simply, the measure calls on the United States' representatives on the World Bank and other international governmental bodies to begin voting against giving China loans and subsidies. At present, China receives more than $4 billion from those organizations, which are themselves financed heavily by the United States. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 9 There is no constitutional authority for the United States to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 10 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. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 12 The measure passed by the House of Representatives last week is a small step toward denying the Beijing communists access to the easy money which has propped up their country for last several decades. It's just a step, but we had to start somewhere. !CITE: 111097 Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 13 And, who knows, maybe next year - when I will again have the opportunity to introduce my amendment to end US subsidy of China - we will see more Members of Congress willing to stop handing the monster of Asia a $4 billion check. Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 !TITLE: - Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead !DATE: 17 November 1997 !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 1 November 17, 1997 !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 2 Congress has finished for the year, but fast-track is not dead !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 3 Serious debate on presidential power derided, principle of free-trade weakened By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 4 An American wit once said that every man's life or property is in danger when Congress is in session. If that's true, then America is safe at least until the end of January because Congress finished its legislative business for the year last week. But all is not closed on the issue of trade. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 5 Besides the closure of the session, last week also saw the process known as "fast-track" derailed as it was pulled from consideration even though leaders on both sides of the political aisle - from the president and speaker of the House on down - claimed fast-track is the most important, "bi-partisan" legislation of 1997. But is fast-track dead? Hardly. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 6 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. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 7 Members of Congress opposed Fast-Track for various reasons: some sensible, some less so. Serious proponents of fast-track claimed their support came from a dedication to free trade. Less serious supporters were swayed by political deals, threats and even pressure from financial supporters. This process is nothing new, but record offers were made to persuade Members of Congress to change their vote and support the fast-track authority - regardless of party affiliation. Making up the bulk of opposition to the authority were congressmen supporting the unions and the protectionists, really concerned only about their particular niches. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 8 And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, proponents of individual liberty and low-tariffs, positions held by a scant few. We opposed the fast-track authority for what it is: an unconstitutional shift of power designed to promote managed trade to benefit the politically connected. But the arguments of principled free-traders were cavalierly dismissed by the supporters of fast-track; thoughtful opposition is not allowed when it comes to violating the Constitution. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 9 In fact, those offering reasonable arguments against fast-track were often ridiculed by proponents as "hiding behind the Constitution." Discussions of concern about damage to American sovereignty were labeled as "nutty" and derided as being tinged with "black helicopter" fever. So much for serious debate on public policy! !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 10 There are two points of interest worth noting. First, most members of the pro-fast-track movement have, in the past promoted ceding war-making authority to the UN, used taxpayer-money to bail-out big corporations, and sent ever-increasing sums of your money overseas in foreign aid to dictators. With all that, is it any wonder there has been a populist backlash, led by the very different likes of Ralph Nadar and Pat Buchanan? !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 12 So why the sudden rhetoric of free-trade to prop-up fast-track? Could it be that fast-track, the process which gave us NAFTA, has, in reality, nothing to do with free trade? Could it be that the real protectionists - the protectors of the big corporations - have realized that fast-track serves their interests by promoting a managed trade system that benefits the existing players at the expense of upstart competitors? Certainly. The ready willingness to grant exemptions to various industries and commodities during the negotiations suggests less than a principled effort to promote free and unhampered trade. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 13 Fast-track is the solution to a non-existent problem. There is no reason why free trade - if that is really the desired goal - cannot be accomplished without existing structure. Agreements can be easily drawn up between nations in a simple, efficient fashion - with Congress' full participation. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length, it's only when protections for various industries, bonuses for certain corporations, are added in fine print that the agreements turn into novels. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 14 The whole debate over fast-track, slow-track and trade barriers completely ignores a very simple reality: countries that impose high tariffs on the people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export products to them. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 15 The fast-track deliberation has had the effect, either by design or by consequence, to obscure the real need and processes for freedom in trade. While it is fortunate that for the many, varied reasons, fast-track was placed on the political shelf for the season, the set-back to those who would limit trade is only temporary. Expect them, and their rhetoric, to be back in full-force when Congress resumes legislative activity in 1998. !CITE: 111797 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 !TITLE: - Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace !DATE: 24 November 1997 !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 1 November 24, 1997 !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 2 Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 3 US foreign policy is senseless, derived from propaganda and ignores fact By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 4 In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 5 Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 6 Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 7 There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 8 The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a "cheap" war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the "price" innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 9 During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II. Yet instability remains and hatred of America increases. Many years of experience should demonstrate that further hostilities toward Iraq benefits Hussein as his people rally more strongly around him with each increase in sanctions. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 10 Current American policy has fractured the weak alliance that was bought in the Persian Gulf War: Russia, France, China, Egypt and others have urged that no military force be used at all. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 11 According to a recent Associated Press news story, Kuwait's leaders and citizens are opposed to US interference with Iraq; remember, this is the same nation we went to war for after Iraq invaded them six years ago. If the people most vulnerable to Iraqi aggression are not anxious to see military might used against Hussein, they are sending a strong message to us about the wisdom of using force at this time. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 12 A popular conservative talk show host has suggested that the solution to the dilemma might be an alliance with Iran, for the purpose of destroying Iraq. This reflects the senselessness of foreign policy in the region. In the early 1980's, when Iraq was using poison gases against Iran, we were Iraq's allies. In essence, we subsidized the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 13 Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey's policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who's controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 14 The main goal of American policy appears to be to kill Hussein. If there was a clear understanding of this region, one would realize that this would probably lead to more chaos, more hatred toward America, and most likely cause a greater threat of terrorism here in the United States. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 15 Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 16 A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East. !CITE: 112497 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 17 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 !TITLE: - Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government !DATE: 01 December 1997 !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 1 December 1, 1997 !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 2 Congress '97: more taxes, more spending, more big-government !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 3 New budget is the biggest ever for federal government spending By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 4 With Congress' 1997 legislative year behind us, I sat down to compile a list of the achievements of this Congress. The results were not encouraging. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 5 Perhaps a front-page article in the Washington Post from last week best sums up why I see the Republican Revolution has turned out to be one consisting more of style than substance. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 6 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. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 7 Like many Americans, of course, I have been disappointed by politicians who can talk the tax-cutting talk, but who walk the big-government walk. Perhaps a little too optimistically, I hoped 1997 would be different. I actually looked forward to being able to report to the people of the 14th District that Congress has finally come around to doing what the American people have wanted for a long time: cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting the size of government. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 8 But what mark has this Republican Congress of 1997 left on history? The answer was to be found very early on, just after the new Congress convened in January. The very first "domestic" action made by Congress was to raise taxes. Over the opposition of only a handful of us, Congress voted to increase taxes on the sales of airline tickets. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 9 If it had stopped there, maybe it would not have been so bad. But at every turn, this Congress has voted, directly or indirectly, to increase taxes. Of course, it was often sold - if mentioned at all - as "revenue generation" for government, or, as "closing a loophole." But the bottom line is this: Americans are going to be paying more taxes this year than last year, to finance a bigger government with more unconstitutional programs. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 10 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. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 11 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. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 12 If that were not bad enough, Congress has seen fit to not just escalate the funding of already-existing unconstitutional programs, but to actually add new agencies and programs which serve to benefit special interests at the expense of hard-working Americans. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 13 Last week, the left-leaning Washington Post ran a front-page story headlined "Budget Pact's 1st Bottom Line: A Surge in Domestic Spending." The story details, in glowing terms, how this new budget is "the largest amount of overall government spending ever." Ever! And remember, this was the supposed "conservative" Republican budget. The spending items brought forward by the Republican leadership and approved by the House - over my objections - was more than what even the president had asked. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 14 But for as discouraging as 1997 was for those of us who seek to cut taxes, cut spending and cut the unconstitutional programs, there is still reason for some optimism. We should be optimistic because for the first time in many, many years, at least the rhetoric is on our side. Even the statists, those who love government intervention, are couching their big-government ideology in quasi-constitutional phraseology. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 15 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. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 16 In this battle over federal priorities, those of us fighting on the side of constitutional government, individual liberty and free markets must not give up. The fact that the 1998 budget is bigger than any before it should spur us not into retreat, but more resolutely into action. Now is not the time for us raise our hands in surrender to the big-government advocates who mouth the rhetoric of our beliefs, but rather for us to speak more forcefully, work harder, for lower spending. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 17 History will unfortunately record that 1997 was the year Congress passed the biggest-spending budget ever. But if we work hard and wisely, then perhaps 1998 will be recorded as the first time in history the level of federal taxes and spending actually began to shrink. !CITE: 120197 Texas Straight Talk 01 December 1997 verse 18 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 !TITLE: - Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity !DATE: 08 December 1997 !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 1 December 8, 1997 !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 2 Taxes and regulations will never lead to prosperity !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 3 "Command economy" stifling liberty, freedoms of American heritage By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 4 We do not live in a free society, all the puffy rhetoric aside. In fact, it is accurate to say that we live in what economists correctly call a "command society." But all is not lost, and there is reason for hope. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 5 In a free society, social and economic problems are solved through voluntary and free market solutions. Compassion is real and charity honest in a free society, where no one is compelled to assist another. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 6 But today, whether the problem is food for the poor, homes for the homeless, or medical care for the sick, our society endlessly calls upon government to redistribute resources contrary to the needs of the market and producers of prosperity. In fact, in government's rush to distribute welfare, there is a total disregard for the conditions required to produce the wealth. So as they rob resources to pay for these supposedly humanitarian concerns, the government "do-gooders" not only harm those who work and save for their own families, the government hurts all of society by violating the tenets of a moral, free nation; finally, it rubs salt in the wound by crippling the very system needed to produce more wealth. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 7 Further, in this misdirected humanitarianism, great harm is done to the very people who are supposed to be helped by the government welfare: the direct recipients, who become trapped in a perpetual degrading dependency, and the working poor, who bear the greatest burden of taxes and inflation. In a command society, the government continuously says, "do this," "do that," and we must obey -- "Or else," hangs the threat. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 8 We are endlessly compelled to be licensed for all that we do, so as to provide government more funding for our trouble. Rules and regulations are all around us, from morning to night, cradle to grave. Government taxes life, taxes death, taxes success and taxes savings. We suffer from double and triple taxation. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 9 We run into government regulations, rules and paperwork everywhere we go. We cannot walk, talk, pray, or own a gun without a government sanction and permit, payable at the check-out window. We cannot drive a car without bells and buzzers and horns and belts and bags, all serving as a reminder that Big Brother is watching, just waiting for one misstep. Meanwhile, the rapists and murderers go unpunished. We are intimidated by political correctness to the point that innocent humor is a crime, and the law is laughable. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 10 Our businesses are subject to invasion at will by government bureaucracy without warning, to save us from ourselves, while destroying our freedoms. As the bureaucracy thrives, the command society expands. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 11 I see no evidence, sadly, of a reversal of this trend. We continue to tinker with the bureaucracy and talk of the benefits of block grants, yet we never are allowed to discuss in polite society the philosophic and moral principles which permit the command society to exist. In order for a command society to exist, individuals must concede to government the completely arbitrary use of force to mold personal behavior. For a command society to operate, the government's threat and use of force -- economic or physical -- is essential. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 12 All decisions and systems of government have a distinct moral base. When we grant government the right to be charitable for us, we also grant government the right to force us to be charitable when we otherwise would not. And the use of force to compel an act of charity is, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "sinful and tyrannical." !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 13 The command society is the epitome of sin and tyranny, though in our age it often hides behind the mask of compassion. We must not be fooled by the masks, and we must commit ourselves to work for freedom and liberty. In a command society, all are beaten to the lowest denominator, while in a free society all have the opportunity to soar. It is only in a free society in which the hungry are fed, the homeless housed and the illiterate educated. And it is only in a free society in which the creative are rewarded, the producers encouraged and the industrious promoted. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 14 Without a change in our philosophic and moral approach to government, we will find that all the adjustments, tinkering, reinventing and revamping of the "command society" will not and cannot bring us freedom. It would be easy to fall into pessimism and think all hope is lost for the nation, but that is not the case. While the politicians in Washington, DC, have accepted the "command society" point of view, the people have not. As I travel the 14th District, I am encouraged that the people are not being fooled. And as the Washington politicians start to hear the voices of those calling for liberty, there will be changes! !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 15 After all, just as no man achieves political freedom after being forced into slavery, no nation can tax and regulate its people into prosperity and liberty. Eventually, the arguments for liberty and freedom will carry the day. !CITE: 120897 Texas Straight Talk 08 December 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 !TITLE: - Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda !DATE: 15 December 1997 !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 1 December 15, 1997 !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 2 Kyoto treaty disregards science for a radical anti-American agenda !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 3 Environmentalism has become refuge for those opposing liberty and American goals By US Representative Ron Paul !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 4 In blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the United States, the well-being of American families, and even reasonable science, the Clinton administration last week sounded the trumpet blast of victory in signing on with an international treaty dealing with environmental issues. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 5 In Kyoto, Japan, delegates from more than 150 nations gathered to set new, international guidelines for reducing the so-called "greenhouse" gases. As one might imagine, the villain in the eyes of the participants were the "greedy Americans," and as such we will bear the brunt of the treaty's wrath, while communist China and the world's other oppressive regimes can pollute all they want. Those on the radical environmental fringe, who organized this conference, have been using questionable "science" to raise the fear that some environmental collapse is just around the corner unless immediate, radical action is taken. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 6 We've only been able to accurately study the levels of atmospheric gases for some 25 years. To definitively claim today's weather patterns are the result of naturally-occurring cycles, or part of a long chain of natural events, or something man alone is creating, is unsound simply because more data is needed. In the respectable scientific community, there is considerable debate over how to interpret the global climate data. Therefore, urgings for radical action based on claims that the earth is about to boil are wrong-headed. In fact, all available evidence points to the contrary, that the temperatures are getting cooler, on average. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 7 To be fair, many in the environmental movement are honestly concerned about man's impact on our land, air and water, and are sincere in wanting only to do what is right. At a basic level, we all should be concerned about those things. But sadly many in the movement are more guided by a complete, unabashed hatred of free-markets, capitalism and the American way of life, as well as a complete disregard for the well-being of their fellow man. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 8 Using the shrill scare-line of impending natural disaster, the world's opponents to liberty have become the world's radical environmentalists… And the leaders of the international environmental movement. So while science is at best uncertain about "evidence" for eminent global environmental disaster, the radical fringe has not let facts stand in their way. And so we have the Kyoto treaty as a result; after all, no political leader wants to be seen as "anti-clean air," no matter what the science says about the provability of the environmentalists' claims. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 9 Under the terms of this treaty, the US would be required to make big cuts in emissions over the next 15 years, while Communist China – the world's biggest polluter – is not required to do a thing, nor are the hundreds of other polluting Third-World nations. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 10 This treaty will wreck havoc on the US economy if it becomes law. This will force many industries to close their doors here and move to China (or a similar nation) to escape the new regulations, throwing thousands of Americans out of work. Further, limiting the use of coal, gas and related sources will increase energy prices not only for businesses, but the individual consumer as well. So not only will many families be tossed into unemployment lines by these environmental radicals, but many more people will face a reduced standard of living just to heat their homes. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 11 Also suffering under this treaty will be the sovereignty of the US and the agriculture industry. Under the still-sketchy terms of the treaty, the US will cede some control over the day-to-day policy and regulations of the American rice growers and cattle ranchers to United Nations bureaucrats. Why rice and cattle? Because rice paddies and livestock produce methane gas, which the radical environmentalists claim will destroy the planet. I hope this is not lost on anyone; the biggest threat to the planet apparently are not man-made chemicals, but rice and cows. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 12 Further, under terms of the treaty, military action would have to be significantly curtailed. While I am a staunch opponent of policing the world, it is unreasonable that the US government would be prevented from moving troops because of the terms of an "environmental" treaty. Of course, the treaty does exempt military maneuvers which are officially sanctioned by the UN high command. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 13 Perhaps the bottom-line of this treaty is not that polluting is bad, or that we are facing a massive environmental threat. The bottom-line, apparently, is that Americans are bad, and that the notions of free-markets, individual liberty and capitalism are a threat to the radical agenda of the international liberal-left. The treaty makes it clear that anyone can pollute, as long as they are an oppressive regime, a communist dictatorship, or have the approval of the international bureaucrats, though perhaps that is redundant. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 14 Providing for a clean environment is a noble and laudable goal, but this treaty is not about protecting natural resources. This treaty is bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy. This treaty is nothing more than anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism, and it must be stopped. !CITE: 121597 Texas Straight Talk 15 December 1997 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. His office may be contacted at 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515. Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 !TITLE: - President must withdraw troops from Bosnia !DATE: 22 December 1997 !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 1 December 22, 1997 !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 2 Monday, December 22, 1997 !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 3 From Ron Paul's Weekly Column !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 4 Congress must bring American troops home !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 5 President pledges indefinite Bosnian involvement, despite reason and Constitution !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 6 While many Americans are observing Christmas this week, our troops in Bosnia found out last week that the present they are getting from the President is an indefinite stay in that war-torn region. Of course, taxpayers get to partake in the present; after all, we are footing the over-$7 billion bill. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 7 What makes this latest announcement by the president unique is that he is finally coming clean with what many, including myself, have viewed as his real objective: to keep troops in Bosnia indefinitely, despite the constitutional and moral reasons against any involvement whatsoever. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 8 For hundreds of years the Serbs and Croats have been fighting, trying to get the upper hand on the other. When the Communists took over the region more than 50 years ago, an artificial peace was set in place; a "peace" brought on by the heavy hand of tyranny. When the communist regime crumbled, the old enemies were allowed to once again take aim at each other, which they did with a horrific zeal. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 9 It was in November 1995 when President Clinton ordered US troops into the region to police it and force everyone to get along. While there was, correctly, strong opposition to this foreign imperialism in the Congress and among the people, the President moved forward, promising that at the most, the troops would remain twelve months, and not a day longer, he promised. But in a sober address, he told the American people a few months later that the troops would need to remain in place until mid-1997, and no longer. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 10 Like so many of his other promises, though, the promise to bring our troops back was conveniently forgotten 10 days after winning re-election in 1996. He announced the troops would have to remain in place until June 1998, more than eighteen months longer than he originally, categorically, promised. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 11 The mission in Bosnia has been an unqualified failure by any standard save one. If the goal is to weaken domestic defense and inspire anti-American sentiment abroad by spreading US troops around the globe in pointless missions with high risk, then the goal has been reached. But if the goal was to bring peace, it has obviously not occurred. The hatred lives on, and skirmishes are part of daily life for the people in that region. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 12 If the goal was to reign in the bad-guys, that has not happened simply because in a conflict hundreds of years old, there really is no way to say who is and is not "wrong" by any standard that has meaning. The Serbian leaders have committed atrocities, as have the Croatians. Can we dictate who is morally superior? !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 13 If the goal in the region has been to promote an image of helpful-Americans to all sides, then we have failed even at that. By aligning ourselves with the Muslim/ Croatian alliance, we have alienated the Serbs. Using our standard of justice, we have arrested Serbian "war criminals," but yet almost ignored the Croatians. How can the US claim to be "keeping the peace" when our troops have been used to take-over the television and radio stations which were pro-Serb? !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 14 US intervention is only heightening animosities between the sides, a far cry from the stated "mission." !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 15 This week the President declared he would keep the troops in Bosnia until there is a firm foundation for a lasting peace and no more violence. Talk about arrogance! How exactly will we do this? By force? Perhaps, for there is really no other way. But is that the proper role for our troops? Absolutely not. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 16 This president, like so many of his predecessors, has engaged in reckless foreign adventurism with a complete disregard for the Constitution, the philosophy which founded this nation and the security of our nation. Our founding fathers opposed imperialism in all its forms, and rejected the notion of "foreign entanglements" except when the US was directly threatened. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 17 To counter the threat of foreign policy being dictated by special interests, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, power to engage our nation in war. Only after a congressional declaration of war is the president authorized to place troops in battle. Yet presidents of the later half of this century have felt no need to follow the Constitution as they have sent our troops into senseless battles without congressional approval; remember Vietnam? !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 18 Yet Congress refuses to act in opposition, for fear of being labeled the politically-deadly "anti-troop." Sadly, it is anything but "anti-troop" to want our soldiers out of harms way when the situation does not involve us. In fact, those who put our troops in the line of fire for the sake of modern imperialism are the ones who are "anti-troop." They are the ones who are getting our soldiers injured, maimed and killed. By removing our troops from the situation - or, better yet, not putting them there in the first place - we are protecting their lives. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 19 Perhaps more importantly, we could better protect the security of our nation by bringing our soldiers home. With thousands of troops in Bosnia and other "hot-spots" of civil unrest around the world, our borders are less secure, our defense less than ideal. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 20 Now the ball is squarely in the court of Congress, with the question being a simple one: Will we allow the President to permanently place US troops in harms way in a region where no US interests or security is threatened for the sake of playing the role of global cops? When Congress returns to session in January, we will doubtless have the opportunity to cut funding for this latest maneuver by the president. Until now Congress has merely acquiesced and let the president continue placing our soldiers in a perilous, ridiculous situation. But the time has come for Congress to act. We must reign in the president and bring our troops home before the situation deteriorates. !CITE: 122297 Texas Straight Talk 22 December 1997 verse 21 American involvement in Bosnia is a dangerous policy, which defies both logic and the Constitution. Our president may be eager for a war record, but getting it at the expense of endless involvement in Bosnia is a price which must not be borne by our soldiers' blood, or the taxpayers' money. The time has come to end this presidential charade, to call his bluff, and prove that this Congress is pro-troop and pro-Constitution. Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 !TITLE: - President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors !DATE: 29 December 1997 !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 1 December 29, 1997 !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 2 President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 3 Latest move done without congressional approval, gives Korea a free ride !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 4 Using the old reliable excuse that it was in the interest of "national security," President Clinton last week opted to obligate the money of the American taxpayers to bailout the troubled South Korean economy and the legions of wealthy investors who had made a mistake in sinking their cash into a bad market. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 5 Just a few weeks ago, the president and the Secretary of the Treasury announced that no taxpayer cash would go to the bailout, except as a last resort. Backing off from another promise, though, the Clinton Administration announced on Christmas Eve that it would go ahead and send almost $2 billion from the Treasury's Emergency Stabilization Fund. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 6 This kind of frivolous use of taxpayers' money is a sham. Under our Constitution, this fund should not exist in the first place, given the Article 1, Section 7, powers and restrictions on raising and spending money. Brought online by the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s, the fund was set-up to stabilize a volatile US dollar, not prop-up foreign currencies and markets. So even if this fund were constitutional - which it clearly is not - to use the money to cover the bad investments of Wall Street bankers and save the hides of Korean government officials is against the premise under which the fund was established. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 7 Further, the same section of the Constitution requires that Congress allocate taxpayer funds for expenditure, not the President, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Prime Minister of South Korea. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 8 But the stage was set for this kind of bail-out funding several years ago, during the so-called "Mexican Peso Crises." Then, the US raided the Stabilization fund to pay-off another bad set of investments in a risky foreign economy. At least then the US was given collateral for the loan in the form of oil production revenues. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 9 This latest bail-out loan, however, is being given to the Korean government without so much as a cheap used car as collateral. If you or I tried going to the local bank and asked for a $1.7 billion loan without so much as presenting a trinket for collateral, we'd be laughed out the door. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 10 Apparently, though, if you are a nation with a bad credit problem and a history of making stupid economic decisions, you can come to Uncle Sam and get the cash without any question. Or, as apparently in this case, not even any real requirement to change your mode of behavior. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 11 Of course, Mexico and South Korea do have something special which makes their case easier for the politically minded controllers of the taxpayer purse-strings. Both countries had a lot of American investors wanting to cash in on lucrative deals abroad with the possibility of big payoffs. Of course, as anyone who invests knows, the bigger the potential payoff, the bigger the risk. But many investors today are eager to embrace the philosophy of free-market economics when it comes to making money and keeping their profits, but at the first sign of those investments going sour, they want the government to socialize their losses at the expense of the taxpayers. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 12 And since these investors have also heavily "invested" in American politics, it is easy for the politicians to use your money to help them out. After all, it is very easy to be generous with other people's money. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 13 This bailout policy flies in the face of sound economics, of constitutional principles, and even old-fashioned common sense. But even worse, this policy immorally exposes the taxpayers to a tremendous risk. If Korea doesn't pay back the cash, then the only way for the government to make up the shortfall is to come knocking on your door again and reaching further into your pocket. After all, neither this president nor a majority of the Congress has any desire to cut spending to cover their improper uses of your money. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 14 And while $1.7 billion may not seem like a lot to the quasi-socialist nations like Korea, it represents a significant amount of money to most Americans. By giving away almost $2 billion to a foreign government at a time when we face a continually growing national debt, proposals to cut benefits to senior citizens and veterans, and an tax rate of over 50 percent, it seems our national security and well-being is weakened by this maneuver, not mystically increased as the president would have us all believe. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 15 But then, worrying about real national security, the risk to the taxpayers, and the viability of our own economy, is something upon which most politicians prefer not to dwell. !CITE: 122997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas. He may be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington DC 20515, or on the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 !TITLE: 1998 is a new chance to change government for better !DATE: 05 January 1998 !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 1 January 5, 1998 !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 2 1998 is a new chance to change government for better !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 3 Paul vows to continue working to push his popular legislation !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 4 For many people, the dawning of a new year represents fresh opportunities. As I recently sat down to examine last year and explore the possibilities for 1998, I knew that there was only one resolution I could make in good conscience. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 5 Having already been blessed with a wonderful, expanding family of children and grandchildren, a beautiful wife of more than 40 years, and good health, I knew my resolution for 1998 should focus on the office with which I have been entrusted by the people of the 14th District of Texas. My focus in Congress for 1998 will be on providing an alternative to the Washington status quo, and remaining true to my Oath of Office. That Oath was administered a year ago this week and stated: !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 6 "I, Ron Paul, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 7 This Oath clearly that as a Member of Congress, I can only do those things outlined in the Constitution. And so I must "bear true allegiance" to the law of the land, and support only the special interest of constitutional government and individual liberty, not the failed ideologies of big-government, command economics and central control. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 8 But it is not enough - either by my Oath of Office before God, or my conscience as your employee - that I simply speak against those opposing our form government and values. Instead, I must work actively to introduce those values into the national debate and into the law books. As such, I will be spending a great deal of time arguing on behalf of passage for the legislation I have introduced. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 10 And legislation like HR 2868, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act. This legislation would allow individuals the opportunity to decide for themselves what to believe about dietary supplements, health foods and herbs. Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years had demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers extensive regulation by the FDA, which is based more on protecting the interests of big pharmaceutical companies than sound science and good health. As a physician, I want to make sure individuals can examine the truthful claims of all sides about the positive and negative benefits of products sold over-the-counter in grocery and health food stores. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 12 In all, I am pleased to be sponsoring more than a dozen pieces of legislation, each designed to promote the interests of individual empowerment, constitutional government and much lower taxation. Further, I will be working hard for the more than 100 pieces of legislation I have cosponsored, all of which reflect the deeply-held morals, views and attitudes of the people of the 14th District, and our Founding Fathers. !CITE: 010598 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 13 With 1998 comes a fresh opportunity to work for the future, to work for a society which respects the principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic liberty. With this new year we have a new opportunity to usher in a future for ourselves and our children which is brighter than any previous generation has imagined. Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 !TITLE: Emotion should never dictate policy !DATE: 12 January 1998 !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 1 January 12, 1998 Emotion should never dictate policy !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 2 When liberty is sacrificed for safety, both are lost !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 3 This past week our nation lost a decent man, in the death of Representative Sonny Bono in a snow skiing accident. By now, everyone has heard the eulogies of Mr. Bono, to which I can only add that I am very appreciative for even the brief time I had to know him. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 4 Despite the sorrow, we must be cautious with how we proceed. Already there is grumbling of groups wanting the government to step in and regulate snow skiing, to prevent further tragedies. Those desires are fueled by the fact that this was the second celebrity death on skis in as many weeks, the first being the death of Michael Kennedy. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 5 But tragedies, and the emotions which surround them, should never dictate public policy. To allow emotion to overwhelm reason, to allow sorrow to trump reasonableness, is dangerous and can only lead to bag legislation. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 6 Accidents happen and cannot be foreseen. That is, perhaps, the single most true statement one can make. By the very definition of an accident, it is an unforeseen, undesired incident in an otherwise routine activity. It is incumbent upon us to take precautions against accidents, whether it is driving a motor vehicle, working around the house, riding a bicycle or skiing. But how does the government "outlaw" accidents, which is what some obviously propose Congress do when they ask for legislation to "stop" accidents from happening. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 7 The only way to completely prevent an accident from occurring during a particular activity is to cease the activity, or to make participation in the activity so onerous, so burdensome, that the activity might as well have been banned. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 8 In the emotion of the moment, people often say and do reckless things. For the individual, that can have deep ramifications. But when it is a single individual acting unreasonably in the throws of emotion in the face of sorrow, then the consequences are borne by only that person and his family. But when the government behaves recklessly in response to a tragedy, the consequences can be felt by everyone. This is especially true when politicians get in on the act. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 9 We can think back no further than July of 1996, when a plane carrying several hundred people suddenly and mysteriously crashed off the coast of Long Island. Within days, Congress had passed emergency legislation calling for costly new security measures, including a controversial "screening" method which calls for airlines to arbitrarily detain passengers just because the person meets certain criteria which border on racist and xenophobic. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 10 The politicians got to feel warm inside because they had responded to a tragedy. But now, there are complaints from airline passengers as they wait in longer lines. And, of course, the real tragedy is that not a single security measure could have prevented the explosion of that plane. It was an accident. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 11 Benjamin Franklin once addressed this issue by saying that anyone who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As we grieve an accidental death, we must make sure that in our sorrow we do not create a larger tragedy by allowing government to improperly take on powers and responsibilities it should not have, or to unnecessarily expand those that it does. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 12 When the government does this great harm is inevitably done in the name of "protecting" people. The scariest words in modern lexicon are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Government cannot protect us from accidents any more than it can tax us into prosperity. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 13 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. !CITE: 011298 Texas Straight Talk 12 January 1998 verse 14 As our nation grieves the loss of a man of considerable and varied talent, let us not rush to remember him in a way which discounts the rule of law, which dishonors the notions of individual responsibility, and which ignores our system of government. It's easy to look for a quick fix from government. But it is also very dangerous. Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 !TITLE: Government prescription for health is bad medicine !DATE: 19 January 1998 !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 1 January 19, 1998 !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 2 Government prescription for health is bad medicine !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 3 No one thing is perhaps more important to the individual than their health. Our health affects literally every aspect of our lives; whether it is our jobs, our families or our recreational pursuits, our level of basic health is a determining factor in what we can and cannot do. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 4 But oddly, our health is perhaps the one aspect of our life over which we often have the least amount of say; a fact which should be troubling to us all, but particularly to those of us concerned about encroachments on liberty. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 5 As a physician, I often recommend to my patients that they never just pursue any one plan for fitness and nutrition; intelligent study, moderation and variety are, indeed, the spice of life and health. But there is an unfortunate trend toward restricting the access people have to factual information about alternatives to commonly accepted nutritional programs. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 7 Of course, it is done in the name of protecting people from… whatever; pick the horror of the day. But it undermines the basic, commonsense notion that people have a greater stake in providing for their own health and well-being than some bureaucrat living a thousand miles away. It also points to the ever growing disconnect between corporate concerns for the bottomline, and the desires of the individual. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 8 I will never make the case against the great scientific and technological advances we have made in fighting cancer and the ravages of age. But those methods are not always the most effective in a particular circumstance, and there is a great deal of scientific proof - growing daily - that following various regimes of nutrition and exercise actually cure some diseases and prevent others. I have a friend who specializes in chemical and radiation therapy for cancer patients, but recently he began using one day a week of practice to study and work with nutritional supplements to those therapies. While he is quick to point out his experience is not conclusive and that every patient's case is different, he has been surprised at how many of his patients respond as well or better with the added nutritional therapies as others do in the course of more widely accepted, conventional treatments. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 9 We should not be surprised that the government would want to control this area which is so basic to our very lives. It is just one more example of government control. But unlike so many other areas where government regulation amounts to economic restrictions and time inconveniences, this growing trend can have serious and immediate repercussions in people's lives. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 10 As the population gets older, and people seek ways to cut costs, they will want to look more closely at the benefits of healthy living and nutritional balance. But those who make their living from people using the expensive "mainstream" programs are not excited about that; after all, if someone can achieve good health simply by fortifying their diet with some commonly available vitamins, minerals and herbs, the pharmaceutical companies lose out. So aligning themselves with government, these corporations are trying to shore-up their profits by actually supporting new regulatory burdens in the hopes it keeps new ideas and philosophies out of the public market, prohibiting consumers from getting information on alternative health programs. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 11 It is for this reason I have introduced HR 2868, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act. This legislation will allow consumers to get factual information about the health benefits of natural foods, vitamins and herbs without the sellers of those natural products suffering costly regulatory burdens. Individual consumers should be allowed to weigh for themselves, preferably in consultation with the doctor of their choice, what is best for their particular situation. But for as reasonable as this may sound, and for as much in line with our national heritage of individual liberty it may be, this legislation run exactly contrary to the current direction of regulatory dictates. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 12 As individuals begin to consider ways to live healthier lives to be productive longer, it is imperative that they are able to provide for themselves and their families in the ways which best suit them. And if we have learned anything about federal involvement in just about everything - from education to crime to the environment - we know Washington is the last place we should be looking. Moreover, recent FDA reforms also challenge our national sovereignty by attempting to "harmonize" US regulations with the restrictive policies of other nation's. Fortunately we were able to remove the application of harmonization language to dietary supplements but we still have a long way to go to achieve health freedom. !CITE: 011998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 13 Decisions about nutrition and treatment for living a healthy life need to be made in the home and in the examining room, not in Washington, DC, or in a pharmaceutical company's board room. Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 !TITLE: Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises !DATE: 26 January 1998 !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 1 January 26, 1998 !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 2 Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 3 On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 4 Recently, there have been attempts to tie the bare-minimum pro-life "Mexico City" Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. But those attempts are now coming back to haunt those of us who believe in both the sanctity of human life and the inviolability of US sovereignty. I expect that very early in this second session of the 105th Congress, which begins Tuesday, January 27, we will see a "grand deal" struck which will see liberals "back down" from their opposition to a revised Mexico City Policy in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations and IMF. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 5 The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because it is a bare minimum requirement, although, as I say, I consider it ineffective in stopping tax money from funding abortions. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 6 I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aide for international "family planning" programs. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 7 In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy prohibits funding of some abortions, it does not prohibit funding of all abortions, and creates large loopholes. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 8 Meanwhile, the United Nations and IMF are two international organizations which frequently act in a manner contrary to the sovereignty interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of both of these organizations. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 9 Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony "back dues" which we supposedly "owe" this organization. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett's legislation. I expect that these funding issues will be rushed to the forefront by Congressional Leaders within the next several weeks. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 10 We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 11 This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a "deal" has become apparent, a deal which will harm the sovereignty of our nation and weaken the pro-life cause. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 12 The plan which is now being discussed has the Republican Congress voting to approve both new IMF funding and the payment of the phony UN debt, with the President agreeing to watered-down Mexico City language. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation's integrity by trading votes in this fashion !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 13 Worse still, it now appears that conservative congressmen are willing to water the Mexico City policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in the first place. Thus we have Congressional leadership again backing down from President Clinton, giving in to his demand for unrestricted public funding of abortion even while compromising America's sovereignty by providing further taxpayer funds to organizations such as IMF and the United Nations. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 14 Fortunately many conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called "compromise." I will vocally oppose any effort to pay even one more penny of US taxpayer dollars to the United Nations or IMF. Although I believe that this "grand deal" has already been struck between the leadership of Congress and the White House I believe it is incumbent upon men and women of conscience to contact their representatives and speak out against this scheme. !CITE: 012698 Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 15 To date we who support the cause of life have compromised too much; it is time to stand firm. It is unconstitutional and immoral to use taxpayer dollars to fund even one abortion, whether it is foreign or domestic. And it is unconscionable that elected officials of the United States would consider using unborn children in foreign lands as pawns in a game that further undermines the best interests of the United States. Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 !TITLE: Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base !DATE: 02 February 1998 !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 1 February 2, 1998 !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 2 Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 3 It appears the Clinton Administration is now ready to bomb Iraq. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 4 The stated reason, of course, is to force UN inspectors into every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction: an impossible and implausible task. While some will try to claim that the President's personal problems may influence this decision (which should not be completely discounted), the real problem is the flawed foreign policy which underlies all our activities abroad. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 5 Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all posses weapons of mass destruction, and at least three are hostile to American policies. It makes no sense that a petty dictator without weapons is the target of hostilities while big dictators with massive armaments are the recipients of US aid. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 6 There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by the Congress. War is something to be feared, and thoughts of which should never be entertained lightly. It is for this reason that our Constitution specifically states that declarations of war, the initial commitment of military personal in armed situations, is to be made only by Congress. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 7 Today, tragically, decisions to place our troops in harm's way are done at the whim of the presidents, though often at the urging of some congressional leaders without a vote of the entire Congress. As repugnant as it may be to our sensibilities, the UN Security Council and the leaders of our "ally" countries often have more say in whether or not our troops go to battle than the elected representative constitutionally charged with this decision. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 8 Trying to appease the military industrial complex and appear tough for campaign ads, many congressmen will make strong public statements goading the president to battle, going so far as to draft meaningless resolutions supporting bombings and military action. But they refuse to claim their proper constitutional role and take responsibility for sending America's youth to die in the sands of a foreign desert. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 9 Poll after poll shows Americans are not anxious for war, and few constituents I meet offer any advice other than that we get out of the situation before it gets bloody. But even internationally the President is getting little support, in fact a lot of resistance, from our allies for his aggressive talk. Indeed, it is surprising to find that our allies in the Middle East, who are most likely to suffer if Hussein indeed develops weapons of mass destruction, are the least inclined to go to war. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 10 Several years ago we fought a war for the people of Kuwait after Hussein invaded their land. Today, the Kuwaitis are opposed to seeing US troops destabilize the region with war. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 11 A Kuwaiti professor was quoted in a pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, "The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies," thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States' continued military presence in the Middle East. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 12 And a Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, "The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it." !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 13 Other Kuwaitis have even suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival. Not a bad theory when we remember that the US supported Hussein as recently as nine years ago, and had until then for a decade supplied him with money and weapons, turning a blind eye to his policies and aggression. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 14 Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein and unify the Islamic Fundamentalists against the United States. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit so he can further stir hatred and blame toward America for the pain he has inflicted on his people. Indeed, at every turn in this "crises," Hussein has gone before his people and blamed the US for their problems. And the Iraqi people believe it. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 15 So no we are faced with the possibility of going to war, alone, for… what reason? To protect a region which says publicly that it does not need to be protected? Even now the groundwork is being laid for a war as senseless as the one in Vietnam, in Somalia and in Bosnia. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 16 I, too, worry about a biological or nuclear threat. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our aggressive, hostile policies, than if we were friends with all, enjoying economic relationships and open dialogue. The way we usually get dragged into a war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm's way and the enemy took the bait. Once hostilities begin, debating the policy which created the mess is off limits; the thinking goes that everybody must support the troops by blindly and dumbly supporting irrational and irresponsible policies. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 17 But the best way to support our troops is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation and bloodshed. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans. !CITE: 020298 Texas Straight Talk 02 February 1998 verse 18 Unfortunately, we cannot expect such common sense to prevail in the current political climate. Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 !TITLE: National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved !DATE: 09 February 1998 !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 1 February 9, 1998 !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 2 National testing averted, but education woes still unresolved !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 3 Washington is big part of the academic problem, not the solution !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 4 As I cast my vote for a measure to stop the Clinton Administration from instituting national testing, I did so with a degree of reluctance. Not because I like national testing, but because the measure - like so many introduced in Washington - had less to do with principle than with politics. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 8 In fact, federal involvement in education is less about any real desires to educate kids as it is about ensuring a power-base for the Washington politicians. Decisions that affect our teachers and students are made on the basis of promoting the interests and securing the livelihood of bureaucrats, rather than sound science and years of hands-on experience. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 9 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." !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 10 Even worse, "teaching a test" leads to a far inferior education, for the simple reason that uniformity of process and results requires sacrifice and compromise to the exclusion of all else, including excellence. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 020998 Texas Straight Talk 09 February 1998 verse 13 Sadly, the entrenched advocates of unconstitutional big-government have little reason to fear losing their power anytime soon: the attitude in Washington, DC, is still firmly against local control and parental power, regardless of the rhetoric. Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 !TITLE: US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq !DATE: 16 February 1998 !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 1 February 16, 1998 !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 2 US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 3 It has been the accepted political notion in this half-century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissent. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 4 Yet no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 5 The president has been beating the drums of war, and many congressional leaders have been goading him along. However, there has been no serious discussion of the Congress claiming its constitutional role in these matters. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 6 One example speaks loudly. As the legislative week came to close on Thursday, February 12, the Congress was told the day would conclude early. The final debate was heard in early afternoon and congressmen began to leave town. But I and my staff noticed something was up. Sure enough, a few minutes after 4 pm, we inquired and learned that the House Leadership, Democrats and Republicans, were taking the floor to show uniform and complete support for any decision the president may make - and especially for sending our troops to battle. I managed to get time to oppose this one-sided maneuver, and as I took up the time, other Members of Congress of both parties who still happened to be around, came to the floor in a rush, ready to make the case I was making: That full debate was constitutionally mandated, and that Congress, not the president, should commit our troops to battle. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 7 Earlier that day, I introduced HR 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those banging for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 8 There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 9 Even worse, the President and others promoting this war are arguing for military objectives which are vague and, according to experts, completely unrealistic. The basic flaw in our foreign policy since World War II has been a lack of objectives, mainly because none of the wars have been to protect our nation. Our troops went into battle for political or industrial purposes, rather than to achieve military victory in the face of a real threat. As a result, we saw years of war in Korea and Vietnam drag on, costing thousands of lives with no real success. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 10 Why does the American soldier and taxpayer have to bear the burden of enforcing UN dictates? It is simply immoral for the US to enter into a war which has no objectives other than to kill people with whom we disagree for the sake of looking tough on the world stage. The only moral war is a defensive war to preserve our national security. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 11 But while the politicians are talking about sending our troops to battle, the American people are becoming more concerned with the unforeseen, or, rather, undiscussed, consequences. Up to now, no one has been able to show that Iraq has either the ability or the intentions to attack the United States. Foolish actions against that nation will only make it more likely that American citizens and cities could be targeted for terrorist or military attacks. In fact, Saddam Hussein is hoping to provoke the very actions now being contemplated on Capitol Hill. By attacking the Republic of Iraq, and killing Iraqi nationals with our bombs, Hussein will have the political leverage to gain even more support, and the imperative from his people and supporters to strike back from the position of an underdog. Further, there is discussion of possible anti-West alliances being forged in the Middle East which actions against Iraq could further provoke. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 12 Finally, before committing our troops to this action and opening our people and cities to the possibility of retaliatory attack, we must focus on the consistency of our priorities. According to February 12 stories by the Reuters News Service, from 1985 to 1989 the United States and England provided Hussein with biological weapons - the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing, according to American and British intelligence documents. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 13 Further, we know that at least 20 nations are developing weapons of mass destruction, and there are numerous nations that already possess them. Does that mean we must attack them all, for fear of their possible use? !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 14 According to the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. My legislation prohibits Defense Department funds from being used for offensive actions against Iraq without Congress legally declaring a war. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 15 It is a sad indictment of our government that it takes legislation is required to force the President and the Congress to follow the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, especially when dealing with issues of life and death for our troops and our people. !CITE: 021698 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 !TITLE: Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district !DATE: 23 February 1998 !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 1 February 23, 1998 !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 2 Fighting for liberty takes place in Washington and in the district !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 3 Constituents demand less taxes, less regulation, and more liberty !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 4 Four offices with full-time staffs working ten hour-days is all the proof I need that Americans have far too much federal government on their backs. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 8 Nothing could be more wrong. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 10 Daily my offices in the district are flooded with calls from people who have reached their wit's end in dealing with the vast myriad of agencies and bureaucrats, running in to the brick walls erected by the advocates of government intervention. To date the staff has been very successful. I think of the gentleman in the southern part of the district who recently attended a town hall meeting and told me how the IRS had been hounding his family for years over perceived mistakes. He had reached the end of his rope when he came to our attention, but my staff - using the bully position of the congressional office - was able to fight the red tape and the bureaucrats. His voice was strained as he told me that without my staff's intervention, he and his wife "would have been kicked out of our house and living under a bridge." His story is too commonplace for this statement to have been an emotional exaggeration. Daily we see similar situations with people of all backgrounds from all over the district. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 11 But there are those who either refuse to acknowledge the suffering brought on by the failed ideology of government intervention, or they think it is justifiable. And they want more of it. Just this past year, in the midst of the major hearings on abuses by the Internal Revenue Service, that Gestapo of American life, Congress sneaked in over $700 million dollar budget increase for the IRS. I caught wind of the increase and voted against it. We need less of the IRS, much less. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 12 Of course, those whose political ideology supports massive government will try to use the vote against me. And that is as it should be: the last thing I want is to make big government advocates happy. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 13 The people of the 14th District of Texas, indeed the people of the United States, are tired of people harassed by federal agents who are enforcing unconstitutional regulations promulgated by an unfair tax burden. I'm proud to be fighting the foes of constitutional government and liberty. But I'm even more pleased that so many people are part of the fight. History has shown that big governments collapse under their own weight, and that those who favor government intervention scurry to insignificance in the light of liberty. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 14 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. !CITE: 022398 Texas Straight Talk 23 February 1998 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 !TITLE: Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform" !DATE: 02 March 1998 !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 1 March 2, 1998 !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 2 Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform" !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 3 Freedom and democracy should be enhanced by campaign reform !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 4 'Reform' is a word used rather carelessly in Washington, DC; a buzz-word used to give legitimacy to action, any action, regardless of its impact on our society. More damage has been done to our nation under the auspices of 'reform' than any other excuse. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 5 Despite the rhetoric, the proposed "campaign finance reforms" have little to do with liberty, freedom and democracy, and much to do with narrowing the choices available to the American people and limiting their ability to participate in the free exchange of ideas. And above all else, these "reforms" are designed to preserve the status quo and protect those in power. To maintain their authority, many in Congress are willing to limit the choices of Americans and trample First Amendment rights. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 6 I recently asked to come before the House Oversight Committee to discuss campaign finance reform as part of a panel. Congressman after congressman presented their ideas to restrict the American people and limit participation in the political process. They offered proposals requiring that the American taxpayer bear the burden of funding the campaigns of all federal candidates (of course, not all candidates would be federally funded, it was quickly added, only those who are deemed "viable" by the government). !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 8 Extensive power - the ability to confer financial and legislative favors - is now concentrated in the hands of relatively few lawmakers. If we remove that power, we remove the incentive to influence how the power is wielded. I wouldn't mind getting the big PAC money, but it doesn't come my way because I'm not considered a "good investment" for those seeking handouts or special attention at taxpayer expense; they know I just won't go along. Big money flows to non-ideological candidates who have no problem tinkering with the markets to give advantages - or disadvantages - as they wish. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 9 The only meritorious reform is legislation to strike down barriers which serve to quash opposition to the big-government political factions. For this reason, under authority of Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution relating to the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding federal elections, I have introduced HR 2477, the Voter Freedom Act, and HR 2478, the Debate Freedom Act. Rather than trampling individual rights, these bills actually enhance fundamental liberties and expand the exchange of ideas. These bills embrace, rather than disgrace, the First Amendment. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 10 The Voter Freedom Act prohibits states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to candidates for federal office, while the Debate Freedom Act prohibits recipients of taxpayer-funded campaign matching funds from participating in debates to which everyone qualifying for such funds are not invited. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 11 If corporations conspired to lock their competitors out of economic markets the way Republicans and Democrats have locked competitors out of the political market, CEOs would be prosecuted under anti-trust laws. And the many of us are correctly calling for more parental choice in education, to improve academics. But Republicans and Democrats defend the status quo-protection racket by claiming we must limit the number of candidates down to avoid "voter confusion." So while the American people can sort out the myriad of choices available to them for foods, entertainment, banks, schools and doctors, politicians seem to think voters are not smart enough to decide between more than two candidates (especially as there is often no substantive difference between candidates of the two major parties). !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 13 As this issue remains in the forefront, there will be the opportunity to make major changes. The changes we make will affect the electoral process, which will affect the government which taxes and regulates so much in our nation. If we choose poorly, people will become more disinterested and the special interests will gain even more power. But if we choose wisely, we will present to the future a system more democratic and responsive to the notions of liberty so cherished by the American people. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 14 Choice and competition are good in our lives, imperative for a healthy economy, and an absolute necessity in free elections. !CITE: 030298 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives. He can be contacted at his office, 203 Cannon, Washington, DC 20515, or via the Internet (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 !TITLE: Block grants are not the answer !DATE: 09 March 1998 !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 1 March 9, 1998 !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 2 Block grants are not the answer !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 3 While rhetorically popular, they fail to address real problem !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 4 Block grants have become a popular rhetorical device, holding out the promise of restoring local control to lessen the Federal bureaucracy. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 5 Recent legislation marking the first major change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, but actually increased funding paid for with federal taxes, even while holding out that the block grant system was 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. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 7 Further, 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. Collection and distribution which has nothing to do with the reality and everything to do with redistributing wealth to the benefit of politicians and special interests. Wealthy states, like Texas, will never get their money back, even if every program is block granted. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 10 There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If funding for the obscene, wasteful and wholly-unconstitutional NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government could we expect to be? !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 11 The devolution approach is not the first choice of proponents of big government, but it is acceptable to them. Why? The calls for more spending are usually satisfied as the supposed advocates for smaller government agree to more money so as to get the symbolic block grants passed into law. In the end, all the politicians, in spite of the rhetoric, are content, because they can sing both sing pleasant tunes to their special-interests. But the taxpayer loses because the money is still taken, at ever increasing rates, from their wallets. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 12 Devolution is said to be a return to States Rights, since it is inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States Rights and will prove not to be an adequate substitute. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 13 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. !CITE: 030998 Texas Straight Talk 09 March 1998 verse 14 This process, even if temporarily beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and shortcomings of the welfare State. Time is against the advocates of big-government, but unfortunately, in the meantime it is also against the wallets and well-being of the taxpayers. Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 !TITLE: US should stop meddling in foreign wars !DATE: 16 March 1998 !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 1 March 16, 1998 !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 2 US should stop meddling in foreign wars !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 3 Faulty foreign policy often puts US in bad situations !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 4 Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 5 Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. It is telling that while Congress cannot find a way to make serious tax cuts or reforms to the IRS, reduce spending or erase the bureaucratic red tape, our national leaders can daily find new hot-spots around the world send our military and our money. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 6 Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova "without question a terrorist group." So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists? Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, `All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.' What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 7 All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 8 The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 9 Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 10 But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 11 Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President's objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 12 This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world's natural resources? !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 13 Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 14 Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 15 Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans' defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations. !CITE: 031698 Texas Straight Talk 16 March 1998 verse 16 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 !TITLE: Security of the people's liberty at risk !DATE: 23 March 1998 !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 1 March 23, 1998 !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 2 Security of the people's liberty at risk !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 3 Recent vote suggests elected official more interested in politics than morality !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 4 It's not often that Members of Congress have the opportunity to take a vote which clearly states the intent of the Congress to either follow or not follow the Constitution. A vote which is not tethered to pork-barrel spending, special-interest giveaways or political land mines. Such a vote came up last week. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 5 Of course, when one sees the results of such a vote - when it finally comes around - it is enough to make a decent American blush, and then get very angry at the immorality of our elected officials. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 6 Casting votes on the basis of constitutionality is not about a political ideology, it is about basic morality. The moral choice is between following the rule of law or the whims of man. The rule of law gives us liberty, freedom and civilized society, while the whims of man gives us holocausts, confiscatory economic policies and pointless wars. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 7 Sadly, though, our representatives and senators, and our presidents, seem intent on following something other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism, behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing the "will of the people." But the rule of law is about doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob - even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind it - might desire at the moment. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 8 Of course, the law - the Constitution - is inconvenient for those who want to use taxpayer dollars to expand their pet causes or political ambitions. The politics of unconstitutionality knows no partisan boundaries in Washington, which accounts for the continuing upward trend of taxes, regulations, spending and, of course, pork. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 9 And so last week there came before Congress legislation stating that Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war and commit troops into situations of hostility - as defined and clearly stated in the Constitution. It further stated that if troops are to remain in Bosnia, then Congress should take a vote declaring a state of war. Absent a declaration of war, according to this legislation if it had passed, the troops should be home in 60 days. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 10 This was a vote on whether or not this Congress, was going to vote in support of what the Constitution specifically mandates on the issue of military action and commit of American troops to hostile environments. No policies would change, just a statement of principle upholding the Constitution. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 12 At the core, every vote is a constitutional vote. US Representative and, later, Texas Alamo hero David Crockett, once quoted a constituent, saying, "The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions… The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution… It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people." !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 13 Sadly, 225 Members of Congress chose to ignore the Constitution and forfeit their constitutional-required role in foreign affairs. They had the opportunity to vote in accordance with the most basic, most clearly defined section of the Constitution to which they pledged an oath to uphold, and yet 225 of the 435 representatives chose to not follow the rule of law, but to allow the whims of man to prevail. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 14 When Congress so clearly votes against the Constitution a dangerous precedent is indeed set, and as Mr. Crockett warned, nothing is safe from the grasp of the politicians. !CITE: 032398 Texas Straight Talk 23 March 1998 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 !TITLE: Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation !DATE: 30 March 1998 !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 1 Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 2 Major bills pass with no recorded vote to protect the perpetrators !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 3 Often, the methods by which Congress operates is as bad as the legislation it passes. Take, for example, last week, when the $14 billion Foreign Affairs appropriations bill was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. This legislation was the result of work by a conference committee of congressmen and senators to resolve the difference between legislation passed by the two Houses of Congress. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 4 For weeks arms have been twisted on Capitol Hill because the votes simply were not available to pass the legislation: there was plenty to offend everyone, but especially those of us concerned about the Constitution, national sovereignty and the dignity of life. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 5 With very little warning, however, the legislation came up on the House floor, and the measure was allowed to pass on a "voice vote," without a record of who supported or opposed it. This surprised some of us who wanted to be on-record against this monstrosity, and it pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue. There were many in Congress - and in Washington - who wanted this measure passed into law, but did not want to be held accountable, on the record, for actually supporting it when the extent of damage it causes is later revealed. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 6 What was in the legislation? It contained nearly a billion dollars for the controversial "back-dues" which the United Nations claims we owe them, and which many of us believe is false. Further, it forgave the very real debt the UN owes our nation for the subsidization of various UN military actions around the world. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 7 Further, it was argued by some conservative "right-to-life" advocates that the legislation was worth passing - despite so many flaws and shortcomings - because it contained anti-abortion language purported to be "stronger than ever" and would finally be codified. Unfortunately, the reality is that the meager "abortion" language was weaker than ever before with a convenient, gaping loophole to allow the president to continue taxpayer-funding of countries and groups that actually perform and promote abortion: this is language which is now to be codified. That's no pro-life victory; in fact, one could barely describe it as a compromise. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 8 The way Washington works is as if everything is merely a game; a game of who has power, and a game of once one posses any degree of power to hold on it by trying to fool as many people as possible. And the passage of this legislation is only one more move in this "game." Sadly, sincere groups were willingly played like a fiddle, in the hopes that by supporting what is actually very bad legislation, they would have the honor of being "Washington insiders." But it is that very "insider" status which breeds the distrust of the American people, who have to foot the bill for this dangerous game. And it is a process which unfortunately only adds to the cynicism many Americans already hold for the US Congress. !CITE: 033098 Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 9 The events surrounding the passage of the Foreign Affairs appropriations should not make any of in Congress proud, for it certainly shames America. The process, as well as the legislation, stinks. Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 !TITLE: Congressional action weakens national defense !DATE: 06 April 1998 !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 1 April 6, 1998 !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 2 Congressional action weakens national defense !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 3 America's taxpayers, airports sacrificed for "world cop" policy !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 4 Last week Congress passed more legislation which weakens our national defense and further funds the unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible and dangerous practice of policing the world. And it was all done at the expense of America's airports and public housing. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 5 The legislation was HR 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. When I learned that this legislation continued the "police the world" programs, I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund those aspects of the legislation. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee sidetracked the amendments, preventing them from getting a full floor vote. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 6 One of the truly positive aspects of HR 3579 was Section 3002, stating that "none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act." This language is virtually identical to HR 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 7 As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 8 Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in this so-called Emergency Appropriations Act. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport maintenance and safety programs, to be spent on our "police-the-world" program. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 9 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.. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 10 It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, in the Constitution we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 11 There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 12 So as Congress robs from America's taxpayers and airports, I suppose we can all rest secure, knowing that our troops are being scattered around the world, placed in the way of needless harm. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 13 Then again, perhaps we shouldn't rest so secure. !CITE: 040698 Texas Straight Talk 06 April 1998 verse 14 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 !TITLE: Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility !DATE: 13 April 1998 !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 1 Proposed tobacco deal undermines personal responsibility !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 2 In a free society, individuals must bear the cost of their choices !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 3 An easy target these days is the tobacco industry; it is under attack by nearly everyone. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 4 It is true they profit from selling a dangerous product, but so do the manufacturers of automobile, airplane, guns, plastic bags and compressed oxygen, as well as food producers, drug companies and coffee farmers. It is indisputable fact that anything can be dangerous when used incorrectly or excessively. Even oxygen, the very gas which gives us life, can be deadly when used incorrectly. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 5 Tobacco company executives have come to symbolize much of what is wrong with corporate America and our corrupt system of special interests, favoritism, and interventionism. For decades, big tobacco lobbied for, and gladly accepted, subsidies, while anyone with a grain of common sense knew smoking was a bad habit that adversely affected some people's health. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 6 But there were specific gains to be realized from the charade that surrounded tobacco sales. Pretending that smoking was a benign habit made it easier to collect benefits from the nonsmoking taxpayers. And the alternative, arguing for personal responsibility for risk, has hardly been in vogue for the last several decades. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 7 Over the past 50-plus years, responsibility for risk has slowly shifted from the individual to the nanny-state. And the tobacco industry has been a willing accomplice to this betrayal of individual responsibility, in the name of getting taxpayer subsidies. The reality is that big tobacco put the welcome mat out for big government, and now they are having to face the music. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 8 Fundamentally, though, the question is this: who has responsibility for our well-being? Who should make decisions regarding risk-taking and personal habits, the Government or the individual? !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 9 During the Clinton health care debate, tobacco and nearly every other industry took the easy way out. They conceded that it was government's responsibility to provide care for everyone; which means, of course, that it is the obligation of the government to force one person to pay for the treatment of the bad habits of another. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 10 When the free market works, medical insurance premiums adjust to reflect the cost of habits like smoking, sky diving, overeating, and medical preconditions. When Government pays, the concept of insurance goes out the window and everybody gets everything paid for, regardless of their behavior. This, of course, explains why people in socialized nations, like England, continue to smoke in increasing numbers. Socializing the cost of the consequences increases participation in risky behavior. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 11 Persons who have harmed their health by smoking have learned they can coerce those with good health into paying for the consequence of their bad habit. In fact, many who harm themselves through their lifestyles, not just a single bad habit, believe they have a right to be taken care of by someone else. This includes not only those who smoke, but those who drink excessively, or perform sexual acts which increase their chance of acquiring AIDS or hepatitis, or who refuse a proper diet to treat diabetes or heart conditions. To the extent one can lower the cost of a risky habit by having someone else pay for it, the less likely one is to worry about consequences. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 12 It is this abdication of personal responsibility that drives contradictory drug laws; we say a particular drug is illegal, which inspires the use of dirty needles, and then serves to further the spread AIDS and hepatitis. In the name of compassion, the government then forces non-users to pay for free needles so the addicts can keep using their illegal drugs. Nothing could be more bizarre. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 13 Not once have we heard a tobacco industry leader defend his right to sell a risky product, without fraud or coercion, to an informed consumer. In a free society, the user must be held responsible - absent fraud - for the risk he assumes, not the seller of any given product. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 14 Yes, the leaders of the tobacco industry deserve sharp criticism. Once precedent is set in this matter, it will be only a matter of time before the manufacturers of automobiles will be liable for all accidents, even if the drivers are speeding and intoxicated. Chocolate addicts will sue Hershey Candies, while people with high cholesterol can bankrupt cattle ranchers. The whole notion is absurd. !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 15 The proposed tobacco deal does great harm because it further undermines the principle of individual responsibility. Undermining this principle not only drives up the costs of medical treatment and the products involved, it actually encourages dangerous behavior. After all, the typical response to future generations will be, `If I'm unfortunate and become ill or injured engaging in a particular activity, the seller or the Government will be made to take care of me.' !CITE: 041398 Texas Straight Talk 13 April 1998 verse 16 If this attitude toward consumer risk and personal responsibility is not changed, the chances for a free market and prosperous society will dissipate like so much cigarette smoke blown by a breeze. Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 !TITLE: Giving power to parents is truly pro-education !DATE: 20 April 1998 !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 1 April 20, 1998 !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 2 Giving power to parents is truly pro-education !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 3 Federal 'solutions' are biggest obstacles to academic achievement !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 4 Everyone, it seems, wants to wear the "pro-education" label, yet the direction of academics in our nation is dreadfully off course. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 5 The ever-growing Department of Education - for whose existence there is no constitutional, economic, moral or rational justification - continues to promote a "one-size fits all" mode of education as it imposes more and more rules and regulations on our local schools which further removes parents and teachers from deciding what is best for the children, while giving more authority to bureaucrats in Washington. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 7 But when it comes to "control" in education, rarely are parents, the truly responsible party given any thought or credence. In fact, parents are often seen as an inconvenience or obstacle to "education" by many in the edu-cracy. A dangerous attitude, at best. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 8 The reality, though, is that parents - not "well-meaning" politicians - know what options are best for their kids' education. Unfortunately, America has been saddled with a tax system which limits the ability of parents to pursue the academic options best suited for their children's individual situations. With combined taxes taking almost 50 percent of the average family's income, there is little left over for low- and middle-class parents to even consider other educational opportunities. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 9 I have sponsored one piece of legislation, and cosponsored a second, which addresses this issue. My legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 a year per child in tax credits for their educational expenses, such as private, church and home school settings, as well as tutors, books and similar necessities. The credit applies even if the kids are in public schools. The other legislation is similar to Individual Retirement Accounts, but are for educational purposes. Parents would be allowed to set aside money in special savings accounts, the interest on which would not be taxed unless the money is used for non-educational purposes. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 10 By making sure parents get to keep more of their own money, they will be able to provide in the ways best suited for their children and their children's specifics needs and abilities. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 13 To combat this, I have introduced the Agriculture Education Freedom Act, which will exempt from taxes the income a youth receives while participating in these programs. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 14 The more we can do to free people from the chains of government programs and mandates, and allow them to provide for themselves, the better off our society will be. But more importantly, as we free the resources of parents to provide for their children - and allow children to participate in programs that prepare them for adulthood - the higher we will see academic achievement reach. !CITE: 042098 Texas Straight Talk 20 April 1998 verse 15 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. Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 !TITLE: No such thing as a free (government) needle !DATE: 27 April 1998 !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 1 No such thing as a free (government) needle !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 2 Free needles, like free lunches, do not exist. Needles cost something - and there are some who believe taxpayers should foot the bill. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 3 After all, the advocates of government-funded "needle exchange" programs say, the pennies each needle costs to distribute to drug users is small change relative to the costs of health care for those druggies who become infected with AIDS, hepatitis, or any other communicable disease. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 4 As a physician, I can say with no uncertainty that it is far better for a person to use a sterile needle rather than a dirty one. Of course, it is also medically much better for someone to avoid putting harmful or addictive substances into their blood stream, or engage in risky sexual behavior. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 5 I can also say, without a doubt, that the policy of distributing needles at taxpayer expense is both dangerous and immoral. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 6 The argument for needle distribution is, of course, a very caring and pragmatic one. The proponents of needle distribution programs point - correctly - to the fact that using a clean needle will prevent the transfer of contagious disease and, therefore, the future health care costs to government will be reduced. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 7 While factually this argument is true, it rests upon a huge but false premise. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 9 Implicit in this assumption is the notion that the government should compel you, the non-user, to pay for the habit as well as the consequences of drug use. And while I would not stop you from using your own private funds to provide sterile needles to those in your community, it would be immoral for the government to use government force to compel someone to pay for this program. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 10 Of course, this socialistic approach to sharing health care costs is completely at odds with a society which values freedom. There is a casual disregard for risks when an individual knows they will not have to bear the costs associated with the consequences of their actions. Therefore, they respond to this incentive and pursue activities - bad habits, sexual behavior, and on - with riskier consequences than they otherwise would. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 11 This is the socialist's dream. As government assumes the responsibility of paying the costs associated with irresponsible behavior, the more legitimately government can justify its involvement in dictating the behavior. As economist Ludwig von Mises argued, intervention begets more intervention. The only choice is individualism or collectivism because some collectivism always leads to more collectivism, and eventually pure collectivism. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 12 It is unrealistic to expect those who favor government (read "taxpayers") footing the bill for medical costs not to expect the government to then regulate everything a person does which might affect their health. Case in point, the tobacco settlement, and even the helmet and seat-belt laws. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 13 There is a final argument against the distribution of needles at taxpayer expense, and it is an argument which goes more towards the consistency of the entire situation as it relates to the Constitution. Under our current laws, use and possession of particular substances is illegal. Yet needle exchanges would provide services to assist people in breaking the law. This is ridiculous. Our government has become so big, and has stepped so completely outside the limited, enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution, that contradictions such as these are the practical result. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 14 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. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 15 We must be extremely wary when people advocate the use of governmental force in the name of "free" provision for some. It always costs the taxpayers in the end. We should be even more cautious when the government proposes a way to "help" others, because, invariably, the help not only subsidizes negative behavior or results, but, at the same time, becomes the justification for more intervention. !CITE: 042798 Texas Straight Talk 27 April 1998 verse 16 Such is the nature of collectivism. Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 !TITLE: Liberty must be our goal !DATE: 04 May 1998 !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 1 May 4, 1998 !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 2 Liberty must be our goal !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 3 Liberty Amendment abolishes income and death taxes !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 4 May is an important month. This is the time of year when the average American stops working to pay their federal taxes. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 5 Around the latter half of the month, the average American marks "Freedom from Federal Tax Day," which does not mean any of us are yet working for ourselves. Far from it. In fact, once we stop working to pay off our federal taxes, we start working to pay for the cost of federal regulations and state and local taxes. It is not until early July that the people of the 14th District of Texas begin working for themselves. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 6 That is disgraceful, which is why I wanted to come to Congress in the first place. For someone to work six months out of the year only to pay the tax-bill is ridiculous. Think about what you get for your money: EPA agents to grab your land if they think there are endangered weeds on it, OSHA inspectors to shut down your business for "improper" labeling of liquid paper, and IRS inspectors to seize your bank accounts if you use the wrong color of ink on the tax form. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 7 For some, the issue is merely "how do we collect the taxes?" and proceed to debate the merits of a flat tax, a sales tax, a modified graduated tax, and on. But rarely is the real issue discussed by the Washington-insider policy-makers. The real issue is this: Why does government need so much of our money? !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 8 The answer is not complex; government wants money because it wants power; politicians want your money so they can make decisions that benefit them politically and force you to do what they want, being molded into their images. And so government grows. And grows. As they take more of our money, the more we are forced to rely on them, and the more money they "need" to "provide." It's a hideous cycle. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 10 Make no doubts about it, the income tax is horrible, aggressive and must go. At the same time, we must end the appetite the government has for the fruits of your labor. To this end I have introduced House Joint Resolution 116, an amendment to the Constitution, called the Liberty Amendment. The Liberty Amendment has a long history, dating back almost 40 years, with more than a dozen supporters in Congress of its various forms, including several current members. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 11 The Liberty Amendment, if ratified, will repeal the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 13 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. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 14 Perhaps we will celebrate freedom from federal tax day in January, and "Cost of Government" day in February. It may not happen soon, but we must have a goal. !CITE: 050498 Texas Straight Talk 04 May 1998 verse 15 Our founding fathers agreed that liberty was a worthwhile goal. So should we. Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 !TITLE: Is it freedom from religious persecution? !DATE: 11 May 1998 !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 1 Is it freedom from religious persecution? !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 2 Proposed legislation doesn't pass constitutional, economic or moral muster !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 3 In the name of making the world safe from religious persecution, Congress will consider legislation which the politicians hope will make the planet safe for religion around the globe, at the American taxpayer's expense. The legislation is the "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997." !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 4 The "Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997" proposes that a new office be created within the Clinton Administration, with the stated purpose to "provide for the imposition of economic sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution." Numerous issues arising from this proposed legislation warrant elaboration, discussion, and debate: constitutional authority, effectiveness of trade sanctions, rights "swapping," and the practicality of such an approach. !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 6 Constitutional considerations temporarily set aside, it would be commendable if the legislation could at least be justified based upon some proven or demonstrated effectiveness of trade sanctions. The effectiveness of trade sanctions for reforming human rights records is, at best, unscientific and empirically unjustified. Harsh economic sanctions against Cuba for more than thirty years have done nothing to alter that nation's record on human rights or political bent. !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 7 While the right to free religious exercise absent interference from the state is an important right, it is not the only right. Any list of individual rights must also include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. Removing trade barriers benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available from those who have a comparative advantage in the respective good. Those individuals who choose, for moral or religious reasons, not to trade with citizens of particular foreign jurisdictions are, of course, not threatened by removing barriers for those who, for whatever reasons, choose to do so. Further, the right of United States citizens to travel freely, at their own expense, is also infringed upon by the portion of the bills limiting the availability of commercial flights. !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 8 One provision of the bill attempts to provide the President a kind of "Ultra-Fast-Track" authority to enter into multilateral international sanctions and legislative functions contrary to constitutionally-mandated processes. The Constitution, of course, requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate and reserves legislative powers to the Congress. In recent history, Presidents have avoided the two-thirds Senate majority hurdle by semantically re-labeling Treaties as agreements and passing some of them by with narrower margins of approval through both houses of Congress. !CITE: 051198 Texas Straight Talk 11 May 1998 verse 9 Obliterating religious persecution around the world is a noble and, I believe, well-intended pursuit. However, circumventing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as choosing an economically-unproven means of doing so, is never an advisable method. Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 !TITLE: Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution !DATE: 18 May 1998 !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 1 Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 2 Last week, Congress moved our nation closer to a national police state by further expanding the already-unconstitutional litany of federal crimes. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 3 Of course, it is much easier to ride the popular wave of federalizing every misdeed, than to uphold a Constitutional Oath which prescribes protection from what is perhaps the worst evil imaginable: totalitarianism. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 4 What Member of Congress, especially in an election year, wants to be portrayed as soft on crime or deadbeat parents, irrespective of the transgressions against individual liberties and a trampling of our Constitution? !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 5 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. " !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 6 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. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 8 Perhaps more dangerous than either of these items individually is what they represent collectively: a move towards a federal police force. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 9 The argument is that states are less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with individuals who flee one state for another to avoid prosecution. The Constitution preserves the integrity of states, and provides the means for them to exact penalties from those who violate their laws, and the Constitution provides for the return of fugitives from one state to another. There is, of course, an inconvenience imposed upon states in working with one another, rather than relying on a national police force. But there is a greater cost to individual liberty from a centralized police power. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 10 There is a simple, sound reason to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions -- it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the liberty of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 11 When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet, moving to a "competing" jurisdiction. If, for example, one state has a high income tax which the residents feel is inappropriate, they can move to Texas (as many have done) to keep more of their earnings. But as government becomes more centralized, it becomes more difficult to vote with one's feet. There must be ample opportunity for citizen mobility: to proper governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical. !CITE: 051898 Texas Straight Talk 18 May 1998 verse 12 And the federalization of every problem takes us further and further from the Constitution, and liberty. Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 !TITLE: Asian economic crisis result of suppressed liberty !DATE: 25 May 1998 !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 1 Asian economic crisis result of suppressed liberty !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 2 Answer is fundamental change, not status quo quick fixes !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 3 Along with the Berlin Wall, the communist system came crashing down in 1989. But in the same year, the Japanese "economic miracle" of the 1970's and the 1980's, with its `guaranteed' safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe, and then to America, should not be summarily dismissed. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 4 The root of the problem is found in the flawed premise upon which economic systems around the world have been based for the last century. For us to escape the economic malaise being experienced in Asia, we must address those fundamental problems not look for quick-fixes. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 5 Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by a "central bank" credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the fountain of youth. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-run give an illusion of wealth, is actually destructive to prosperity on the long-run. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 6 The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, the day's realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizenry's reaction to the escalating events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome, as well. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of economic malaise, but it cannot prevent the inevitable collapse, as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 7 But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesian economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all "crony capitalism." !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 8 One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation is its unpredictable nature because reactions of the individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it's virtually impossible to predict how and when the bubble will burst - though burst it must. Likewise, the duration of a collapse is not scientifically ascertainable. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 9 "Crony capitalism" was not the cause of Indonesia's trouble; inflationism and political corruption are the culprits, for they allow 'crony capitalism' to exist. In fact, there is nothing "capitalistic" (in a free market sense) about crony capitalism - it is simply a mild form of fascism. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 10 Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. It should be no surprise to see blood in the streets of Jakarta. But instead of these circumstances leading to freedom, many are inviting marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability--with all the dangers that go with increased restrictions on liberty. Sadly, errors in economic thinking often prompts demands for more government programs to `take care' of the rapidly growing number of poor. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 11 Further, international efforts to prop-up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has popped prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Restoration of free markets, including the establishment of a sound monetary policy, has not yet been considered though those are the only real solutions. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 12 For the United States, the most important thing Congress can do is recognize that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out is the worst policy of all for us to pursue. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 13 The philosophy of the free market holds the solution to the exploding East Asian crisis, yet few are willing to consider the philosophy of liberty. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 14 Concern for liberty is not a subject associated with economic crisis and is in fact an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for the philosophy of liberty - whether it is the "personal liberty" of the individual or freedom in the marketplace - is required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the Indonesian crisis. !CITE: 052598 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 1998 verse 15 Let's hope we can get our priorities straight. Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 !TITLE: Constituent service is most important function !DATE: 01 June 1998 !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 1 Constituent service is most important function !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 2 For many individuals, congressional services directly affect their lives !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 3 No other responsibility of a congressman so directly affects the lives of the average person as that of "constituent service." Constituent services take on a wide variety of forms and this column is devoted to describing some of those activities and opportunities. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 4 Perhaps the single most important is that of handling "casework." Put simply, casework is when I, or one of my staff acting in my behalf, intervenes directly on behalf of a constituent or group of constituents before a federal agency, board or commission. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 5 This is sometimes involves making a phone call, perhaps asking that the Veterans Administration send the proper forms to the widow of a veteran, or writing a letter, for example, asking for a delay of improper hearings before an IRS administrative court. But some casework can also involve having myself or a staff member make appearances at hearings, such as when I recently sent my Chief of Staff to Maryland to speak against the closing of a weather station in the district, which is an important issue to a great many people in the 14th District. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 6 Generally, casework involving constituents dealing with federal agencies is handled out of one of my three district offices, in Victoria (512-576-1231), Freeport (409-230-0000) or San Marcos (512-396-1400). The offices will accept collect calls. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 7 But the three traditional offices are not the only means by which constituents can have access to my congressional staff, such as my Mobile Office. This office, a specially converted blue van, travels to the rural parts of the district, offering congressional services to people who might not be able to travel (for health or work reasons) to one of the three traditional offices, but want to meet with someone in person. The Mobile Office's schedule is published in local papers, and is parked in visible places in the community, with constituents actually meeting with my staff in the office itself. The Mobile Office can be contacted at (512) 753-5553. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 8 Further, my staff and I are available to come to schools or community groups to discuss topics ranging from the current events going in Washington to the process by which laws are made. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 9 Constituent services are not limited to solely to the geographic confines of the 14th District. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 10 Constituents of the 14th District can contact my Washington office (202-225-2831) and request that US flags be flown over the Capitol to commemorate special occasions or events (there is a nominal cost involved). !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 11 And for constituents visiting Washington, DC, there are even more services available. Perhaps the most popular are special VIP tours of the Capitol by my staff; constituents can be taken onto the Floor of the House and Senate when Congress is not in session, as well into other parts of the Capitol not generally accessible to the public. Further, with enough notice, my staff can obtain special passes for constituents to tour the White House, the FBI Headquarters and even the Treasury's printing operations. All of these tours are offered at no cost to the constituent. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 12 Finally, there are two important information services available to constituents of the 14th District. The first is my toll-free Legislative Update line. By calling (888) 322-1414, you can hear an update on legislation before Congress as well as information on items of general interest and debate. The second information service is my official congressional web site (www.house.gov/paul/). At this site visitors can find an archive of all my speeches, press releases and even the text of legislation I have sponsored, as well as leave electronic messages for me. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 13 I am most pleased with the high level of constituent service my office has been able to provide, and my staff and I are always willing to take suggestions for further improvements. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 14 No other responsibility of the congressional office is as important, or as rewarding, as the opportunity to assist constituents - whether dealing with federal agencies, providing commemorative flags, or making a trip to Washington more memorable. !CITE: 060198 Texas Straight Talk 01 June 1998 verse 15 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 !TITLE: Religious freedom found in following Constitution !DATE: 08 June 1998 !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 1 June 8, 1998 !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 2 Religious freedom found in following Constitution !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 3 Simply meddling with Bill of Rights will not correct problems !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 4 There is no doubt hostility exists -- and is growing -- against people of religious convictions, especially against those who consider themselves "conservative" or "fundamentalist." The hostility and discrimination is pervasive and routinely expressed in our courts. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 5 And despite the claims of those who attack religious values, these actions are not motivated by a defense of constitutional liberty. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 6 The politically correct religion of our nation has become Secular Humanism; although equivalent to a religion, it is incorrectly passed off by our courts and schools as being neutral with respect to spiritual beliefs and is often used to fill the void by forced exclusion of other beliefs. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 7 This is indeed a problem deserving our close, careful, thoughtful attention. So it was with great sadness recently as I saw the debate unfold for a constitutional amendment which made claims of protecting religious freedoms, yet went sadly awry. While an original cosponsor of the Religious Freedom Amendment, I was forced to vote against it because of changes made in recent weeks. The measure did not pass the House. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 8 Our basic problem is not a lack of constitutional direction regarding the right of Americans to freely practice their religious beliefs; for the First Amendment is very clear. In reality, the problem has been that our courts are filled with judges who have no understanding, appreciation, or concern for the original intent of our Founding Fathers, or for the constitutional Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, or of property rights. And as long as this disgraceful condition exists, any new amendment to the Constitution will only be similarly abused. How can we expect judges, or even Members of Congress, to follow new constitutional amendments when they do not now follow anything currently existing in the Constitution? !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 10 Unfortunately, the final version of the so-called Religious Freedom Amendment further enabled the federal government to do more mischief by expanding their powers. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 12 Further, and perhaps worst of all, the amendment would have forbade state and local governments from denying benefits to religious organizations. This would have had the chilling effect of forcing people to subsidize almost any bizarre practice or ritual B or at least the advancement of that activity -- which its practitioners could claim to be part of a religious exercise. Thomas Jefferson once said that to "compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 13 The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, our existing First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression will be protected more strongly than any effort at federal meddling. !CITE: 060898 Texas Straight Talk 08 June 1998 verse 14 Until our judges and our Congress embraces the Constitution, and willingly follows it, new Constitutional amendments will do little to help and will almost certainly make things worse by weakening the already-existing bill of rights. Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 !TITLE: Campaign reform should encourage choice !DATE: 15 June 1998 !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 1 June 15, 1998 !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 2 Campaign reform should encourage choice !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 3 Current debate focuses on limiting freedom and liberty !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 4 Echoing through the halls of the House of Representatives right now is perhaps one of the most important debates of the decades. So important because it goes to the heart of the First Amendment and, indeed, our very form of government. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 5 The debate, of course, is over a package of legislation referred to as "campaign finance reform." There is a correct recognition of a serious problem in our nation: the undue influence of "big money" special interests attempting to buy - or at least rent - politicians. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 6 Unfortunately, the vast majority of the legislation being considered takes exactly the wrong course of action. Many of the politicians assume that restricting the right of people to be involved in the political process can cure what is wrong with the system. Limiting freedom, however, is not the answer, for the problem is not that we have too much freedom, but that government has too much power. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 8 We are fooling ourselves if we think that real reform will ever take place, given the narrowness of the current range of ideological debate. After all, in Washington it is often political pragmatism, not devotion to principle, which guides the decisions of people of both parties. And they have found it is not only easier to blame those who donate to campaigns for the problem with the system, but it also allows them to keep all the power they have amassed. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 9 The rights of eligible citizens to seek office, volunteer for the campaigns of the candidates they like, vote for candidates of their choice, and even the right to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental to a free society. But more and more, people find the choice of candidates from the two major parties to be akin to choosing between the lesser of two evils, and feel increasingly unrepresented in the democratic process, not knowing that there may well be candidates out there who more closely match their own political philosophy. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 10 I have introduced two pieces of legislation which will be included in the debate on this issue. My legislation, rather than disgracing our First Amendment rights, embraces them by enhancing electoral free speech. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 11 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. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 12 A lack of differing views in the debates is not the only problem; there is also a lack of choice at the ballot box. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 13 Undue restrictions on access to the ballot impair the ability of citizens to exercise their rights, and has a direct and damaging effect on citizens' participation in the electoral process. Many states unduly restrict access to the ballot by means of such devices as excessive petition signature requirements, insufficient petitioning periods, unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition signature distribution criteria, and limitations on eligibility to circulate and sign petitions. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 14 The Voter Freedom Act will establish fair and uniform standards regulating access to the ballot by eligible citizens who desire to seek election to Federal office and political parties, bodies, and groups which desire to take part in elections for Federal office; and to maximize the participation of eligible citizens in elections for Federal office. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 15 Congress has strict constitutional authority to regulate, protect and promote the exercise of the voting rights, as well as set the specifications on how federal elections are to be conducted. !CITE: 061598 Texas Straight Talk 15 June 1998 verse 16 It would be ironic if in our zeal to promote freedom and correct what is wrong with our system of campaigns and elections, we instituted new laws and regulations that trample our most precious rights. The answer to our electoral problems is found not in restricting freedom or limiting access, but rather in following the Constitution and allowing maximum individual liberty. Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 !TITLE: Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy !DATE: 22 June 1998 !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 1 June 22, 1998 !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 2 Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 3 Experience shows that embargoes only hurt Americans, help dictators !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 4 Even actions taken with the best-motivated of intentions can go astray, and what seems politically pragmatic can often have dire, unintended economic consequences. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 5 Nowhere is that more evident than in our nation's trade policy. All who embrace the philosophy of liberty and have a love for freedom have a strong desire for others to break free from the shackles of oppressive regimes. And while we want to see dictators and tyrants fall, we hate to see innocents injured by our action - or our inaction. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 6 There has been a growing recognition that oppressive sanctions do not work, that engagement is the best policy, as it allows the people living under oppressive regimes to see the fruits of freedom and develop meaningful relationships with outsiders. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 7 But there has been an entire level of victims to our nation's policy of economic sanctions who have been completely ignored: Americans. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 8 Recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation's publication, Farm Bureau News, did a remarkable job of highlighting how trade sanctions on foreign countries actually do a great deal of damage to Americans without effectively changing the status quo in the country we are ostensibly trying to "help." !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 9 Illinois Farm Bureau president Ron Warfield is quoted as saying that he and the Farm Bureau "strongly opposes all artificial trade constraints such as embargoes or sanctions except in the case of armed conflicts. We believe that opening trade systems around the world and engagement through trade are the most effective means of reaching international economic stability." !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 10 He is entirely correct. If we cut off contact with people in oppressive regimes, two things happen. First, they are not exposed to different ideas and beliefs, leaving only the nonsense being touted by their government. And second, it allows a carte blanche power for the oppressive government to blame any problems in his country (real or imagined) on Americans, rather than his own failed programs and ideology. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 11 In fact, as we have seen with embargoes on Iraq and Cuba, the dictator grows stronger when there are heavy sanctions, not weaker. But in our country, those sanctions are devastating. Mr. Warfield told a congressional panel recently that when the United States placed an embargo on US grain against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, $2.3 billion was lost in farm exports. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 12 Again quoting Mr. Warfield from the American Farm Bureau publication, "The United States, as the leader in world trade, has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the world by peaceful engagement through trade. Reaching out through engagement and trade, not withdrawing behind embargoes, is the best way to achieve positive change--not by denying ourselves access to the markets and creating opportunities for our competitors." !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 13 And that is a position supported by many in the Christian community as well. Father Paul Sirico, a Catholic priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that sanctions hurt only the people we are trying to help, not the leaders of evil governments. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 14 And there is another dynamic in place as we look toward engagement rather than isolation, and that is the issue of aid. For years the American taxpayer has been forced to subsidize hundreds of governments around the world, including those of some of the most vicious dictators in history, in the name of either "promoting human rights" in that country, or in the interest of "national security." Often times, tax dollars are being used to prop up these dictators, while at the same time trade sanctions prevent US farmers and small businessmen from selling their products in that market. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 15 So while the farmer or small businessman is losing money by being forbidden to enter a potentially lucrative market, he is being taxed at higher rates to pay for subsidies to those same foreign governments. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 16 A more sensible - constitutionally, morally and economically - alternative to our current foreign policy is one of engagement by individuals in trade, and an end to the imperious system of foreign aid. Unless a nation represents a clear and present danger to our national security, we should allow, even encourage, our best ambassadors - who are our businessmen, our farmers, our ranchers - to engage in mutually beneficial trade with people of all nations and regions. As goods are traded, so are ideas. And just as American products are the finest in the world, so too is the philosophy of liberty. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 17 Of course, this policy still leaves open the chance for Americans of conscience to boycott products made in other nations, or to choose not to do business with Americans who enter into trade with countries of which they disapprove. !CITE: 062298 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 18 Our nation should adopt a policy of free and open trade, not immoral and forced aid, in our relations with foreign countries, to the benefit of their people and ours. Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 !TITLE: After 222 years liberty must still be our goal !DATE: 29 June 1998 !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 1 June 29, 1998 !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 2 After 222 years liberty must still be our goal !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 3 Americans must be vigilant, vocal in demanding freedom !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 4 Liberty, freedom, self-determination. It was 222 years ago this week that a handful of colonists stood and demanded that these rights, inalienable be virtue of being endowed by the Creator, be recognized by the imperial Crown of England. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 5 A bloody conflict ensued. But it is not the date that peace was declared and our nation organized which we recognize as pivotal to our history. No, the day we celebrate was the day our forefathers boldly proclaimed to the world that liberty was their goal, a desire for a life to be spent in pursuit of individual freedom. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 6 Those who signed the Declaration of Independence envisioned a nation rising on this continent which was based on the Rule of Law and respected, unequivocally, the rights of the individual to live their lives free from oppression. To a degree perhaps unimaginable to that band of radical idealists, their vision has come to pass over these two centuries. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 7 To a degree. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 8 Each age has had its problems in the United States. The nineteenth century held slavery. The twentieth, the growth of socialism and its sister, fascism. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 9 But rather than focus on where we have failed, our gaze should rest on the ideal. The freedoms we enjoy today are the direct result of the commitment of men and women who refused to compromise their ideals. Certainly they failed at times, even compromised when they should have stayed the course, the problems and deficiencies we see in society is proof that no one is perfect, and that we fall short of our ideal. But we mustn't be deterred from striving for the goal, for liberty. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 10 It has been said that when one reaches for the highest of goals, he may not reach his destination but he will come far closer than the man who set his sights on a much lower standard. Our standard must be freedom and liberty. Unequivocally, and without compromise. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 11 There can absolutely be no compromises between liberty and oppression, for one is the anti-thesis of the other. If we claim to strive for individual liberty, yet we agree to compromise with the forces of oppression, the loser will always be liberty, and the winner oppression. A little oppression is morally the same as the complete absence of liberty. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 12 It is appropriate that this week be not only the observation of the Declaration of Independence, but also the time of year we as individuals - on average - become free of the cost of government. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 13 For more than half of the year the average American toils not for his family, for his needs, or for his future. No, for the first six months of the year, the average American works to pay the cost of federal, state and local taxes and regulations. Imagine that, between January 1 and sometime around July 4, we were working to pay for government, not feed our kids, pay the rent or save for retirement. We were paying for government. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 14 That is unconscionable. Our Founding Fathers would no doubt 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. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 15 We are not slaves, but many feel as if they are indentured servants to government. And by and large it has happened with our willing consent. We have allowed ourselves to compromise sacred liberty for temporary promises of security or false prosperity. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 16 But it does not have to be so. We can reclaim our heritage of freedom, not with a gun but with our voice. We can reject the creep of statism, and encourage the blessings of liberty for our land. It will require work, and it will require commitment, and it will require a willingness to stand firm for our beliefs, refusing to compromise with those who would continue to push for more taxes, more spending and more government solutions. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 17 It can be done. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 18 Liberty, freedom and self-determination. Those goals are as worthy of our attention today as they were 222 years ago in a hot convention hall in Philadelphia. And just as a devotion to those goals brought forth this great nation then, so can a renewed adherence to those principles move our nation to heights never before achieved. !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 19 Our Founding Fathers felt those principles were worth their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor." Do we? !CITE: 062998 Texas Straight Talk 29 June 1998 verse 20 For the sake of our future, I must believe that the answer is yes. Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 !TITLE: Respect for property rights necessary for freedom !DATE: 06 July 1998 !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 1 July 6, 1998 !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 2 Respect for property rights necessary for freedom !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 3 Often Congress' laws are not about environment, but power and control !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 4 It is the most basic of all our rights. In a society which has the proper focus, many of the problems we face today become non-issues. Over the last half-century, there has been a declared war on these most fundamental of rights: property rights. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 5 Some try to make this an issue of simply pro-property rights versus pro-environmentalism. In reality, the issue is much, much deeper. In fact, how we look at property rights is a most basic foundation of our liberty. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 6 When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land - barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land - up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 7 So while a land owner may choose to build a big factory on his land, he must be very careful to ensure that no harm comes to adjacent property owners, or he will face the unmitigated wrath of those neighbors. In the past, big businesses often colluded with government to allow them to pollute their neighbors land, leaving the adjacent owners with devalued property and no recourse. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 8 But the issue is so much more broad than simply concerns over the protection of the environment. Much has been done in the name of "environmentalism" which in reality has little to do with clean air and water, and everything to do with power and control. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 9 For the degree of freedom we enjoy on our own property - whether it is a thousand-acre farm or a single-family dwelling lot in a town or city - is a strong measure of the liberty in a society. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 10 Our respect for private property goes to the root of our other freedoms: freedom of speech, of religion, to own weapons, to gather peaceably, and on. Much is made that one should not "yell fire in a crowded theater." And while that is true in a moral sense, it is equally true that the property owner should have the right to disallow people from saying or doing anything in their theater, or even being there in the first place. But today the government dictates not only how we can use the land, but in many cases forces us to allow others to use our property in ways to which we object. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 11 Freedom only exists where there is complete respect for rights of property ownership. When we go to another person's land, or home, or business, we should expect to be bound by their rules of conduct. And they should be free to protect their property and family as they see fit. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 12 Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly "environmental" in nature, others reflect a desire for "fairness," while still others make claims of simply being "good for everyone." While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution's Fifth Amendment. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 13 Perhaps the most egregious assault occurs, though, at the death of a property owner. Instead of being able to leave the family estate to his heirs, the owner's survivors must instead sit down with the government and negotiate how to divide up the property. The family farm is an endangered species, not for a lack of profitability or interest, but because the taxes assessed by government at our death forces the family to sell off land just to pay the levy. !CITE: 070698 Texas Straight Talk 06 July 1998 verse 14 Our freedoms and liberties are only as secure as our property rights. This was the underlying assumption of our Founding Fathers, and a foundation we are in danger of cracking. Without a firm respect for property ownership, all our other rights are only so much talk. Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 !TITLE: Paul legislation will stop national ID card !DATE: 13 July 1998 !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 1 July 13, 1998 !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 2 Paul legislation will stop national ID card !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 3 Current law requires national ID before getting job, medical care, in 2000 !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 4 Just prior to my being elected to Congress, a piece of legislation was passed which was intended to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into our nation. While the goals were laudable, even the best of legislative intentions can produce results which are reprehensible. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 6 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! !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 9 It is for this reason that I am introducing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, with Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia as a cosponsor. As the law stands now, the government is in a position to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 10 What would the founders of this country say if they knew the limited federal government they bequeathed to future generations would have grown to such a size that it claims power to demand all Americans obtain a federally-approved ID before getting a job? They would no doubt be disappointed. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 11 But if the disapproval of the founders is not sufficient to cause Congress to repeal the requirements, then perhaps the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to open a bank account or see the doctor will turn the tide. Already congressional offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card; imagine the public's surprise when they realize that not only is a national ID movement underway, but will be a reality by October 1, 2000. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 12 Despite pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national ID, followed surely by a national police force, is neither prudent nor constitutional. While it is easy to give in to the rhetoric of "protecting" children or some other defenseless group, we must be cautious that in a rush to provide protection in the short-term, we do not do permanent damage to our national heritage of liberty. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 13 As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security. !CITE: 071398 Texas Straight Talk 13 July 1998 verse 14 Where our security and liberty is concerned, we must remain constantly vigilant and uncompromisingly devoted. Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 !TITLE: Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained !DATE: 20 July 1998 !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 1 July 20, 1998 !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 2 Integrity of Social Security Number must be maintained !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 3 Issues of individual privacy, rights should not be so quickly dismissed !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 4 Everywhere we turn, someone is asking for our Social Security Number: at the airport, the drivers' license office, the store, everywhere, it seems. Yet the Social Security number was created solely as an accounting number in administering the Social Security system, and was never intended to be a universal identifier. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 6 While I am proud to be the author of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which would stop a national identification card from taking effect, we need to be aware that those wanting to give government power to track us from cradle to grave already have the Social Security Number as their tool of choice. It is for this reason that several months ago I introduced the Privacy Protection Act, H.R. 3261. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 8 Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation's founders. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 9 This is not an isolated incident; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. In many states - thanks to federal law - one cannot get a driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just a couple months ago weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America's citizens. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 10 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. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 11 The Social Security Number was created to administer the social security system, and nothing else. We must restore the integrity of the system by restoring the integrity of the accounts. That will only occur when we reign in the use of the account numbers and secure the privacy of the people. This is the purpose of the Privacy Protection Act. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 12 We must stop a national ID for many reasons, both moral and constitutional, and we need to stop it in all its forms. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act addresses the specific issue of a looming National ID, while the Privacy Protection Act addresses the broader issue which has been creeping up on us for many years. !CITE: 072098 Texas Straight Talk 20 July 1998 verse 13 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. Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 !TITLE: Right to work must be free of coercion !DATE: 27 July 1998 !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 1 Right to work must be free of coercion !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 2 Most Americans say union membership should be voluntary !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 3 Most Americans would accept the notion that individuals should be free to work for whom they want, and that individuals should be free to hire whom they want, without having an third party telling them otherwise. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 4 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. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 5 This is unconscionable. So much so, in fact, that polls report 80 percent of the American people believe these laws need to be changed. I'm one of those 80 percent who see the current state of the law as antithetical to a free society, and for that reason I am proud to be a cosponsor of the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 6 The National Right to Work Act simply repeals sections of federal law giving union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism violates employers' and employees' constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Further, Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Perhaps more importantly, though, Congress does not have the moral authority to grant a private third party the right to interfere in the employment agreements between two free people. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 7 Unions should be allowed to exist, as long as they are voluntary agreements between the people involved. In fact, we don't need more regulations on the unions or the employers or the employees. In fact, we need fewer regulations on the kinds of employment agreements people can reach, and allow people to choose whom they wish as their representative, if they so choose. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 8 Unions can serve a beneficial service to employees and even employers. But never should unions have the benefit of the government force giving them power; that is intolerable. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 9 After all, no single organization can be expected to "speak" for everyone. This is why there is so much controversy over the political spending of the unions. The union leadership, for many years, has grown "out of step" with many of its members. Yet thanks to the government, members have no choice but to continue paying dues, which are then used to promote causes they oppose. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 10 A far better system is one of voluntary union membership. If a worker feels the union can represent them and they agree with the politics (or do not care), they are free to join the union. Likewise, an employee can choose to not join a union at all. In fact, a great market could open up, where several unions could exist, giving employees a choice of which union will best represent their interests with the dues they pay. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 11 But at every stage the agreements should be voluntary. Employees should be free to join or not join, and employers should be free to bargain with the unions, or not. The free market will sort out the details. The free and open market, not the heavy, restrictive hand of the government, will determine the best employment atmosphere, allowing for maximum freedom for the employees and the employers. !CITE: 072798 Texas Straight Talk 27 July 1998 verse 12 Americans must have a right to work -and hire - as best suits their needs. A government bureaucrat cannot mandate the conditions, and no single organization can do everything. As always, the principle of liberty and freedom will provide the maximum number of opportunities and options. Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 !TITLE: Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous !DATE: 03 August 1998 !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 1 Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 2 Debate must instead focus on limited government and liberty !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 3 Last week Congress began debate on what is referred to in Washington, DC, as "campaign reform." I find it amazing they can call what was proposed "reform" with a straight face. In reality, most of what was put forward has little to do with the real problem. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 4 Most of the talk about campaign reform has been empty rhetoric, designed to seem worthwhile in a television sound bite, but not much else. For all the talk, the legislation being tossed about amounts to little more than protection of incumbents and the status quo. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 5 The politicians in Washington talk about the need to "reform" fundraising laws by reducing the ability of Americans to participate in the system, giving those in power more power, and those on the outside less of a voice. As those on the outside have correctly pointed out that the system is corrupt, the response from Washington has been to claim that money is root of the problem, and to ignore the regulations that obstruct competition in the process. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 6 But that is not the way I see it. The problem is power - i.e., too much of it in the hands of too few people. The problem with our system of elections is not that we have too few rules, regulations, agencies and commissions governing our lives - we have too many. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 7 Yet those in Washington see that the way to deal with the criticism is to create more red-tape and more restrictions on the way citizens participate in the political process. And therefore more frustrations. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 8 Consider this: Only 80 percent of the eligible citizens register to vote. Of this, 22 percent register as something other than a Democrat or Republican. Doing a little math demonstrates that of the total population of the eligible voters in the United States, more than 40 percent of the people are either an independent or "third party" voter, or they are simply so frustrated or annoyed with the system they no longer participate. That 40 percent block is far larger than the Democrats or the Republicans (around 30 percent larger). !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 9 This means 40 percent of the people effectively have no representation in the political process. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 10 And the politicians in Washington are doing everything they can to make that number grow. With every new law, regulation, restriction, and set of bureaucracies, and with every new tax and fee, people are throwing their hands up in the air, mad that they feel their voice is not heard, and that they cannot make a difference. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 11 And so those in Washington answer the frustration by creating new levels of frustration by further restricting the abilities of the pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the unions and the right-to-workers, the fascists and the libertarians, the socialists and the capitalists, from being heard. Lawmakers say they abhor a monopoly in the marketplace, yet they entertain laws to ensure their duopoly power grows. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 12 Our system of elections will not dramatically change until our politicians attitude towards government is changed. As long as government has so much power over so much over lives, there will be people wanting to buy influence and create ways to keep others from doing the same. If our federal government did only those things authorized by the Constitution, there would be very little incentive for powerful "special interests" to try to influence congressmen. !CITE: 080398 Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 13 While it is easy for the politicians in Washington to try and blame our problems on too much freedom, the real problem is that our government has drifted from protecting liberty to managing a nanny state. Increasing the size of government and its influence over elections cannot help; defending and enhancing personal liberty can. Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 !TITLE: MSAs best option for better health care !DATE: 10 August 1998 !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 1 August 10, 1998 !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 2 MSAs best option for better health care !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 3 Americans should have greater say over medical treatment !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 4 As a physician, I am painfully aware of the shortcomings of our medical system. But few are as dangerous as the rush towards managed care. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 5 Managed care is dangerous because it all but removes the two most important people from the decision-making process for medical care: the patient and the doctor. The managed care system is one which no one seems to want, yet no one can avoid. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 6 With health-care costs rising at ever-increasing rates, many of us feel we have no choice but to surrender to "the system." The costs are rising for many reasons, most notably, of course, is government meddling in medicine in the first place, followed closely by frivolous lawsuits. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 7 But there is a better way, a way which has been gaining attention and even a growing degree of political respectability; the better way is the medical savings account, otherwise known as MSAs. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 8 MSAs are a terrific tool because they allows the individual to save money - tax-free - for use in paying routine medical costs. As consumers are able to set aside cash for their routine, or even emergency, medical expenses, they are able to increase control of their care. With their own cash to spend the way they like with whom they like, the patient is no longer held back by the cost concerns of a managed care organization. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 9 The MSA will help keep down the costs associated with routine medical care simply because the physicians and hospitals will now have an incentive to offer the best service at the best price. And as the patient is able to negotiate with the doctor, better arrangements best suited for that patient can be made. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 10 For most people, an MSA will not take care of all their lifetime medical-care expenses, and for that catastrophic health insurance policies can be purchased. But for routine medical expenses, MSAs can help everyone. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 11 But MSAs are still not a reality. Recently, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection Act; while an otherwise bad piece of legislation, it did move us closer to universally available tax-free MSAs. Essentially, the legislation removed restrictive caps on the MSAs and changed our tax laws so that either an employer or an employee could contribute to the accounts. Further, under current law, a person can only contribute one-twelfth of their annual allowable MSA total in a given month. The recently-passed legislation allows for single-time annual contributions. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 12 It is important to note that while the House has passed this legislation - with all its many faults - the Senate has not, and there is some indication that the president will veto it. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 13 If we are serious about reforming our system of health care, the key must be allowing for more choices and more freedom, not further restricting patients and doctors. The MSA is tool whose time has come. !CITE: 081098 Texas Straight Talk 10 August 1998 verse 14 Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in the United States House. He can be contacted at his Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515, or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 !TITLE: Deceptive economic euphoria !DATE: 17 August 1998 !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 1 Deceptive economic euphoria !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 2 So-called 'good times' must end !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 3 Congressional leaders are squabbling like never before; not over how to cut spending, reduce government and balance the budget, but over how to spend the so-called $1 trillion budget surplus expected over the next ten years. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 4 An interesting concept indeed! The national debt is rising at the rate of over $150 billion per year and our leaders never-the-less are euphoric over huge budget "surpluses" for "as far as the eye can see." This has to be one of the craziest debates of all recorded economic history. I'm sure similar deceptions in budgetary history have been known but never to the extent of this $1 trillion "windfall." !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 5 It is true many Americans believe this nonsense and feel giddy about the prospects of sharing in a perpetual wealth machine. Of course, not much good can be expected to come from such accounting chicanery, but the debate is not all bad. Tax cuts are being considered as a way of "spending" some of the money coming in from - what else! - excessive tax revenues. But the myth prevails that allowing an individual to keep their earnings is recorded as a cost to government, and that is a concept which must be rejected. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 6 The debate over how to manage all this extra cash never includes any discussion about reducing the size and scope of government; while plenty of energy is spent on promoting new welfare and warfare spending. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 7 Is anyone asking serious questions about what is going on and how long will the good times roll? A few, but they are not inside the Capitol Building. Outside the beltway, it's a different story. Many people I talk to are outright skeptical, or just don't believe the propaganda, and many don't even listen to the nonsense coming from our political leaders. They are struggling to pay their bills, believe taxes are way too high, that business and personal regulations are too numerous and overbearing, that inflation is alive and social security is broken. And this in spite of being at the peak of a grand economic "recovery" with the markets in the world awash in paper dollars and paper profits. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 8 It does not go unnoticed by people outside the Washington, DC, that the cost of living continues to rise despite the government's rosey reports. Personal bankruptcies are at a record high level, and the 18% interest on consumer debt is a lot different from interest earned on savings accounts. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 9 But among members of Congress and their staffs, there is unrestrained euphoria. Sadly, it has more to do with politics than reality. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 10 First, we're not doing as well as claimed and most Americans know it. Second, we're doing well because we benefit, as all countries do for a limited periods of time, from central bank credit creation - i.e., free money flowing into the banking system keeping interest rates artificially low. A $5.6 trillion debt and growing allows government expenditures to continue despite the nonsense about a balanced budget all the Washington pundits are bragging about. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 11 But most importantly, our trade deficit, and the willingness of foreigners and foreign central banks to take our inflated dollars and hold them gives us a free ride for now and for as long as they see fit to accept our greatest export: our inflation and debt. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 12 But all good things must end when they are built on a fiction. A fiction is precisely what fiat money is - the economic equivalent of the philosopher's stone, which was hoped to turn lead into gold. !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 13 That it must end points to the bigger problem of dealing with an economic crises when it hits. There is no way to know when such a crises will come - but the laws of economics are as unyielding as those of physics. A crises will come, but how we will deal with it is the most important question of all, simply because our response will determine how future generations of Americans live. Will they have more or less liberty? More or less prosperity? More or less peace? !CITE: 081798 Texas Straight Talk 17 August 1998 verse 14 The solution is not complex if we as a nation reject the notion that the role of government is to use coercive powers to promote welfare and warfare, and instead accept the principle that the role of government is to protect liberty. Only under that system will the euphoria of the politicians be justified. Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 !TITLE: "Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog !DATE: 24 August 1998 !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 1 "Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 2 Inconsistent foreign policy is part of the problem !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 3 Many Americans believe President Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was nothing more than a scene from the recent movie "Wag the Dog." I have been asked by the media if I agreed. My answer has been simple: I really don't know. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 4 But then, I'm not sure if even Bill Clinton himself knows. I'm certain it would be easy for him to subconsciously rationalize anything that distracts us from the Monica Lewinsky affair. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 5 However, there is a much more important issue at stake, and that is an inconsistent and dangerous foreign policy that we have for years followed in the Middle East. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 6 The natural tendency for all Americans is to want to quickly retaliate against anyone who would dare try to kill American citizens. And that is, of course, understandable. But if this in reality makes things much worse and doesn't come close to punishing those responsible, then it may well be a serious mistake on our part. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 7 A few facts to remember: !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 8 First, prior to the terrorist attacks on Tanzania and Kenya, two prominent Arabic newspapers, printed in London, reported that an extremist Islamic Jihad vowed revenge against the United States for capturing three Islamic fundamentalists who were promoting Albanian separatism in Kosovo. Why we did this should prompt a serious discussion regarding our policy in that region. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 9 Next, Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan "Freedom Fighters." Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 10 Finally, the region's Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America's presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims --and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular -- see American policy as identical to Israel's policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 11 Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice -- terror. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 12 The excuse for the U.S. to strike back, given by the President, was to "protect U.S. sovereignty" and to "spread democracy" throughout the world. Prior to last week, though, how many Americans were lying awake at night worrying about an attack by the Sudanese, let alone from our old friends the Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan? Until last week, not one American in 10 million had ever heard of this week's "Hitler"-- Osama bin Laden. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 13 Our current policy in the Middle East is indeed a threat to our security, for it puts more Americans in increased danger. Protecting our so-called interests, i.e., controlling Arab oil, is not worth the danger of giving the Islamic extremist the ammunition and the incentive to unite an entire region -- a region which quite possibly has access to nuclear weapons -- against all American citizens around the world. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 14 "Wag the Dog" or not, "wagging" a foreign policy flawed from the start is indeed a great danger to our national security, and we should soon start talking seriously about a policy designed for truly preserving American interests -- freedom and prosperity here at home. Let us soon end the on-going Persian Gulf War. It is not winnable. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 15 Let us hear no more of our "obligation" to spread democracy around the world in the name of preserving our national security. We're not doing a very good job of respecting individual liberty or the Rule of Law here at home, and it is unlikely we can simply bully others into our mode of thinking. !CITE: 082498 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 16 When liberty is perfectly protected here at home, others throughout the world will emulate us and our message will spread without the need for imperialism, the threat of terrorism or the dangers of retaliatory bombing. Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 !TITLE: Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens !DATE: 31 August 1998 !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 1 Taxpayer cash flowing again to non-citizens !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 2 Popular causes often used to hide unconstitutional spending programs !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 3 For years American citizens had complained to Congress about the policy of providing welfare and other benefits to non-citizens, so it was with great ceremony in 1996 that Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act. Among other things, this measure repealed the nonsensical programs giving taxpayer cash to non-citizens. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 4 Public support for the provision was so strong, even President Clinton had to bow to the pressure and sign the legislation into law. What we in the public missed was what had to be a big wink between Congress and the president, as both crossed their fingers knowing the arrangement was temporary. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 5 In fact, the law had barely taken effect when Congress this year took up legislation, the Agriculture Appropriations for 1999, which had buried in it a return to the old policy of handing out cash to aliens. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 6 What does an ostensibly agriculture-related measure have to do with giving handouts to aliens? Nothing, of course, except it is a way to make it harder for those who oppose giving taxpayer cash to any non-citizen with their hand out to vote against the legislation. Especially in an election year. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 7 In fact, when the books are examined closely, one finds that the benefits aliens receive under this new legislation - and the precedent set by its passage - are far bigger than any positives for American farmers and ranchers. As a note, the Agriculture Appropriations process has long been the hiding place for the failed social programs loved by liberals; some estimates show that as much as 65-70 percent of the spending is on non-ag-related programs. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 8 The paying of benefits to non-citizens is offensive and reckless for many reasons. Most notably because it literally robs money from two groups of people: the people who paid into the system through taxes and are now expecting to get something for their trouble, and the people who are currently paying into the system (through taxes) and must bear a higher burden. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 9 The agreement we each make with the government when we pay taxes is that we are getting something in return: defense, infrastructure, and so on. In our age of welfarism, we also expect benefits from the government if we fall sick or unemployed. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 10 But when those who did not pay into the system get benefits, two things happen. First, the resources available to pay benefits (tax dollars) are spread even thinner. This means that those who paid into the system (especially our senior citizens, and even our veterans) must get a lower return on their taxes and labor, in the form of reduced benefits. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 11 Second, because of the nature of our system, those aggrieved by the spreading-thin of benefits from the pool they created with their taxes will rightly complain. The only option available to Congress - in their warped sense - is to increase taxes on those currently working and paying taxes so that all the beneficiaries get 100 percent of what they were expecting. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 12 But these programs of giving away Americans' tax dollars to non-citizens is not limited to welfare programs at home. We see it also with the subsidization of foreign corporations and foreign nationals through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organizations. Of course, supporters of these welfare programs like to claim that they "help" America's small businessmen and farmers, but the proof simply doesn't exist. In fact, much like the recent "farm legislation," the pay-out to the foreign nationals and corporations is much larger than the small bones thrown to our people as a form of sick appeasement, to keep them paying into, and believing in, the system of redistribution. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 13 Why do politicians feel the need to send your tax dollars to non-citizens? First, almost by definition, non-citizens are ethnic minorities, thereby giving politicians the opportunity to show they 'care" about that particular ethnic group. Second, when the non-citizens reside here, it creates yet another dependent class for when they become citizens; if they get a government check from the moment they cross the border, it is likely they will continue to vote for those willing to provide ever more generous government checks. Third, for those outside the US, often wealthy individuals with ties to US corporations, it creates sources for campaign donations, or provides ways to ensure corporate donors here get lucrative deals overseas, reimbursing the industrialists' donations with tax money. !CITE: 083198 Texas Straight Talk 31 August 1998 verse 14 It is important to always look at the details of the legislation hidden behind the popular names and slogans. It is even more important to follow the money. Americans are tired of being forced to pay benefits to non-citizens, while politicians hide behind platitudes, polls and feel-good policies. Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 !TITLE: 'High crimes and misdemeanors' !DATE: 07 September 1998 !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 1 'High crimes and misdemeanors' !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 2 Hearings must be held for sake of nation !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 3 "Impeach the president!" and "Clinton must resign!" are phrases which were once relegated to the back rooms of - to borrow a phrase from the First Lady - a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Today, those statements are being boldly proclaimed in public by many, even by those who otherwise have strongly supported this president. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 4 Unfortunately, those calls are only now being made after our nation's president has admitted to living a life more akin to an afternoon soap opera than the traditional values which so many in our nation hold dear. While there is a great deal of significance to the fact that the president has admitted to lying under oath in a judicial proceeding, I have not considered - nor do I now - this "scandal" worthy of the attention it has received in the light of so much else before us. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 5 It might be more pressing if this were the only impropriety involving President Clinton; lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and the litany of related crimes alleged, are certainly worthy of trial under our system of government. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 6 But allegations of bribery, treason and oppression of rights are far more serious. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 7 Almost a year ago, long before our national obsession with the Bill-said/Monica-said affair began, Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and I cosponsored legislation called an "Inquiry into Impeachment," House Resolution 304. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 8 I did so because credible allegations have been raised that this president has abused the power of his office, domestically and abroad. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 9 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. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 10 If this president used his powerful position to illegally secure information regarding political detractors, then this president must be impeached. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 11 The situation would be bad enough if the allegations were limited to internal, domestic politics. But even more frightening allegations exist. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 12 Far more pressing than the results of DNA tests on a cocktail dress are investigations into whether this president allowed highly-classified missile technology to be transferred to the communist Chinese government in exchange for campaign donations. The allegations and accompanying evidence are compelling, if not yet complete, to indicate that this has indeed been the case. Let us be clear about this: the government of China is not our ally, and in fact has nuclear missiles aimed at our cities. While we are "at peace," we should be mindful that China is a foreign government with a system diametrically opposed to our own. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 13 If this president not only broke the law by accepting donations from a potentially hostile foreign government, but proceeded to trade our nation's military secrets as a "quid pro quo," then this president must be impeached. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 14 For far too long, Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility to independent prosecutors. This Congress should begin proceedings to hear the facts behind these allegations, as the Inquiry legislation would require. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 15 Congress must move forward now to secure the integrity of our system of justice, protect the liberties of our people, and to ensure our national security. But Congress must move forward with hearings for the sake of this president and the office he holds. If this president has done nothing meriting impeachment, public hearings will vindicate him and the sordid allegations - and purveyors of the falsehoods - will be revealed. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 16 If, however, the allegations bear the weight of the evidence, then the man entrusted with the highest office in our land must be impeached. Should this be the case, it will be a difficult time for our nation, but it is far worse to allow transgressions against our sovereignty and liberty to go unpunished. !CITE: 090798 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 17 Impeach the president? For the sake of our nation, let us hold hearings and weigh the evidence; the allegations are simply too compelling. Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 !TITLE: Inconsistency must be addressed !DATE: 14 September 1998 !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 1 September 14, 1998 !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 2 Inconsistency must be addressed !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 3 Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for drug dealers !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 4 It is simply a fact that even in the best of circumstances and situations, our federal bureaucracies and regulations are maddeningly complex, and it is also a fact that all too often that complexity breeds inconsistency or worse. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 5 In perhaps no situation is that more apparent than our policies regarding narcotics trafficking and use, and federal housing. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 6 As a physician, I know all too well the wretched effects which reckless use of narcotic and mind-altering substances can have on people. I have seen the helpless children born to alcohol- and drug-addicted parents. And I have even witnessed the destruction of families in my community at the hands of those using these substances. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 7 For many years now, our federal government has waged a war on drug use. This "war" has been both figurative and literal. And yet at the same time, American taxpayers are forced to subsidize the very drug dealers and users who we are also trying to eliminate. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 9 In fact, there are rules in place that make it almost impossible to oust those convicted of felonies involving drugs. Some argue that it isn't "nice" to evict these law-scoffs. Others suggest that we just need to spend more money to make the projects nicer, in the hopes that a new coat of paint will convince the druggies to change their ways. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 10 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. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 11 This must change. And so this past week I introduced legislation (HR4551) in the House of Representatives - mirroring similar provisions introduced in the Senate by Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri - that would prohibit anyone from living in federal housing who has been convicted of drug charges. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 12 There will invariably be those who oppose this legislation, for many reasons. But they will ignore one important fact: this is the taxpayers' property. As the landlords, we taxpayers have the right to set forth restrictions on who can and cannot live in the buildings we are being forced to pay for. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 13 And one thing is clear: those who would violate our communities' laws should not expect to be subsidized by federal tax dollars. No matter what some bleeding hearts may say, public housing is a privilege provided by the taxpayers, not a right. !CITE: 091498 Texas Straight Talk 14 September 1998 verse 14 While the American people are willing to offer a hand to those in need, no American should be forced to subsidize those who promote, produce or use illicit substances. Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 !TITLE: The problem is the currency !DATE: 21 September 1998 !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 1 The problem is the currency !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 2 World-wide crisis points to need for sound policies !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 3 A financial crisis is griping the world. It may yet prove to be the worst in all of history, but the source of the problem is not a mystery. It is a currency induced crisis. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 4 Although taxes, spending, regulatory policies, and special interest cronyism compounds the problems, all nations of the world operate with a fiat monetary system and it has allowed the financial bubble to develop. Easy credit and artificially low interest rates starts a chain reaction that by its very nature guarantees a future correction. The later bad consequences of inflating a currency are certain, no matter how beneficial the earlier ones may seem. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 5 Beneficiaries of easy credit demand the policy continue. Creating money and credit out of thin air is perfect counterfeiting, legal and appearing helpful to all. It accommodates deficit spending on extravagant welfare programs and unwarranted international militarism. It seems everyone likes it until the artificial nature of the financial bubble becomes apparent, as it is now. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 6 The current crisis signals an end of an era and it does not bode well for anyone. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 7 The near anarchy in Russia, the food riots in Indonesia, and the growing recession in Japan are signs of conditions spreading across the globe. And unfortunately, there is no sign that correct policy will soon be instituted - anywhere. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 8 Markets inevitably devalue currencies that have been inflated by the monetary authorities. The degree depends on the amount of previous monetary inflation and political perceptions but, on the short run, countries frequently accelerate the devaluation in a competitive fashion in an effort to compete with their trading partners. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 9 Our concerns in the Congress should be for the dollar. We should not use dollars to prop up other currencies or economies, as bail-outs compound the problems and encourage others to mismanage their economies while expecting more cash from Uncle Sam. But most importantly, it actually undermines the value of the dollar. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 10 Foreign Central Banks for years have been willing holders of our dollars, helping to finance our big-spending ways, by buying more dollars than our own central bank. Foreign central banks, however, have begun dumping American dollars, and as this accelerates, pressure will increase on our economy. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 11 What can we expect from our Federal Reserve? Just as difficult as it is for an addict to cut back on drugs, economic planners refuse to cut back the credit creation to which they have become addicted. Long life may be dependent on sound medical advice and drug abstinence, but feeling good on the short run drives the addict. Likewise, an economy feels good by perpetuating for as long as possible the easy credit that brought good times, while the long life of the currency, the economy and the political system gets little concern. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 13 But eventually, the markets will rule. Credit creation may lower rates for a time, but when confidence is undermined, an inflation premium will emerge and rates will rise regardless. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 14 It's time to consider the fundamentals underlying our financial and economic system. The welfare state is unsustainable, as are our world-wide commitments to bail out everyone and to intervene in every fight. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 15 A limited government designed to protect liberty and provide a national offense is one that could easily be managed with minimal taxes, but it would also require that we follow the advise of the Founders who explicitly admonished us not "to emit bills of credit" that is, paper money and use only silver and gold as legal tender. We need to lay plans for our future because we are rapidly approaching a time of crisis and chaos. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 16 We surely do not want to leave the solution to presidential executive orders. !CITE: 092198 Texas Straight Talk 21 September 1998 verse 17 Congress has an explicit responsibility in the area of money and finance and we must assume this responsibility. Manipulating the money supply with the pretense of helping ourselves is unacceptable and destructive. Before our economy is lost, we should work diligently to restore soundness to our monetary policy. Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 !TITLE: For sake of Rule of Law, Congress must proceed !DATE: 28 September 1998 !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 1 September 28, 1998 !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 2 For sake of Rule of Law, Congress must proceed !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 3 Only Clinton's resignation should stop impeachment hearings !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 4 Despite partisan rancor and political positioning, no American should rejoice in the events which now grip our nation. In fact, this is indeed a solemn time for our country. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 5 But at the same time, it is an opportunity - regardless of position, persuasion or party - for we as a nation to reassert that we are a nation built upon the Rule of Law, and not the whims of men. That all people are held to the same standards under the law, and that laws and correct procedures are followed. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 6 The president stands accused of several things, and what is on the forefront of public attention is the charge of perjury and obstruction of justice before a federal grand jury in regards to a civil case involving sexual harassment. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 7 Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives is charged with investigating allegations against a sitting president or judge. While some may talk about whether or not an offense is "impeachable," that is only so much political rhetoric. The Constitution only specifies that Congress can impeach a president for "high crimes" and "misdemeanors," but the definitions of those words are left to Congress to determine - anything a sufficient number of Members of Congress find offensive can be cause for impeachment. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 8 In recent weeks I have been asked many times what the timetable might be for impeachment. We now have a tentative outline. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 9 Currently, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives is looking into the report issued by the Office of the Independent Prosecutor on charges that the president lied under oath. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 10 According to Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), his committee will receive a full briefing on the evidence on October 1st or 2nd. Over the next three days, the full committee will debate the evidence. On either October 5 or 6, the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment hearing. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 11 The resolution would then go before the entire House for a vote within three days. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 12 A simple majority of the House of Representatives is all that will be required to initiate impeachment hearings. Those hearings could begin immediately, or be held until early November, after the elections. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 13 A big question will be whether or not the impeachment hearings will be limited solely to allegations that the president lied under oath, or if it will also include other charges. Those involve potentially treasonous activities in transferring advanced missile technology to the communist Chinese in exchange for campaign donations, as well as violations of peoples rights in the abuse of more than 1,000 confidential FBI files for partisan purposes. (By comparison, a man went to prison in the early 1970s for misuse of one FBI file.) !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 14 While one should never discount the importance of lying under oath, I am saddened that some congressional leaders have recently suggested hearings will not include these other, far more serious, allegations. Crimes against our Constitution must not be set aside for details of sexual escapades. I hope that after $40 million being spent on investigating these more serious charges of crimes against the Constitution, that the entirety of the hearings are not simply restricted to this matter of perjury. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 15 Under our Constitution, in accordance with the Rule of Law, the hearings must be held as long as the allegations remain and the president is in office. Since the allegations are not going to go away, the only constitutionally and morally correct way for hearings to be stopped would be for the president to resign if he has indeed committed these crimes; knowledge certainly the president possesses. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 16 Some claim this situation creates a "constitutional crisis" and an "embarrassment." A crisis will develop only if we, as a nation, reject the Rule of Law, and embarrassment will result only if we forego constitutional hearings. !CITE: 092898 Texas Straight Talk 28 September 1998 verse 17 It is in times of stress that the quality of metal is tested. The same is true for a nation. Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 !TITLE: Tax measure includes version of Paul legislation !DATE: 05 October 1998 !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 1 October 5, 1998 !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 2 Tax measure includes version of Paul legislation !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 3 Parents should be able to provide for education without penalty !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 4 With the passage of new tax legislation last week, Congress is proposing that the American people be able to keep more of what they earn by providing more than $80 billion in tax cuts over the next five years. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 5 While $80 billion is nothing to sneeze at, it should have been a lot more, and a lot deeper, but this is a very positive first step. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 6 One such positive detail is that parents, under this legislation if it becomes law, will see the prepaid, tax-deductible tuition programs expanded to include private institutions. This means a parent can save for their kids education by contributing to a future-tuition payment account up to $5,000 per year, which can then be deducted from their gross tax income. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 7 This is a version of legislation that my colleague Kay Granger of Fort Worth and I introduced last year. Our bill was called the Higher Education Affordability and Availability Act, HR 2847. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 8 The bottom line is that parents should be allowed to provide for their children's educational needs without suffering a tax burden, and in the manner they see fit. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 9 America's biggest education-related problem is not what often grabs the headlines, they are symptoms. It's not crime in the schools, not large classrooms, not a lack of books. The biggest problem is a basic lack of choice. Today, the average Texas family simply cannot choose what particular setting is best for their child. There are simply too many obstacles; the greatest of which is cost. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 10 Last year I brought forward the Family Education Freedom Act, HR 1816, to address this issue. My legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 per year off their tax bill to pay for any of the education-related expenses of their children. The money could be used for private or religious school tuition, books, computers, field trips - anything which is part of the educational needs of a child, whether in elementary school or college. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 11 Government must stop limiting the choices available to parents, and instead work to free parents of the taxes and regulations which keep them providing for their children in the ways best suited for their family. !CITE: 100598 Texas Straight Talk 05 October 1998 verse 12 The House of Representatives took a step in the right direction in the passage of the new tax-cut package, but we cannot stop there; more must be done. Our kids are counting on us. Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 !TITLE: Tax measure provides income averaging !DATE: 12 October 1998 !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 1 October 12, 1998 !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 2 Tax measure provides income averaging !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 3 Farmers, ranchers get strong, common-sense tool !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 4 Agriculture, by its very nature, is cyclical. To say that there are "good years" and "bad years" in agriculture is almost a redundancy; it is merely a fact of life. A fact which until very recently was generally understood by the public, but actually used against farmers by the government's tax collectors. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 5 For people engaged in most other forms of commerce, a person's income and wealth can be measured based on a single year. Not so for agriculture. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 6 Just as the actual processes of agriculture demands a long-term view, so too does understanding the income and wealth of those engaged in the business. The "really good" years cancel out the "really" bad, as the "good" do with the "bad," finally resulting in an average. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 7 Those of us who have grown up in or been otherwise involved with agriculture, understand that income and wealth are viewed in the long-term, over a period of years, not simply on the basis of a single harvest. A good year only corrects the books for a bad year. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 8 But our federal government has seen fit to use the facts of agricultural life against farmers to get a few more dollars of revenue. This occurs by taxing agriculture at the extremely high-income rates in the good years because on paper the farmer made a lot of money. They leave out of the equation that the previous year may have been a disaster because of drought, flood, market fluctuations or other problems, resulting in perhaps literally no income for the farmer and his family. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 9 A much more sensible method of taxation for those in agriculture is one which would view the appropriate level of taxation the way farming as a whole is viewed: in the long-term. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 10 I have been a strong, long-time proponent of "income averaging." This fairer process allows those in agriculture to be taxed at a rate based on an average of several years. Several years ago, income averaging was introduced into our tax system and has been greatly beneficial to agriculture. Unfortunately, that tool was set to expire at the end of 2000. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 11 I was pleased, however, to work on and vote for the recent $80 billion tax-cut plan. This plan does many things, but one of its best provisions is that it extends income averaging permanently. This is an unequivocal victory for those in agriculture. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 101298 Texas Straight Talk 12 October 1998 verse 13 Government should exist not to tie the hands and feet of those working to improve their lives, but to allow people to engage unhindered in the "pursuit of happiness." Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 !TITLE: Economic crisis looms !DATE: 19 October 1998 !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 1 October 19, 1998 !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 2 Economic crisis looms !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 3 Proper steps should be taken to correct situation now !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 4 Although many countries are now suffering more than the United States, in time, I am afraid our problems will become much greater. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 5 A world-wide system of fiat money is the root of the crisis. The post-World War II Bretton Woods gold-exchange system was seriously flawed, and free market economists from the start predicted its demise. Twenty-seven years later, on August 15, 1971, it ended with a bang ushering in the turbulent and commodity-driven inflation of the 1970s. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 6 Now, after another twenty-seven years, we are seeing the end of the post-Bretton Woods floating rate system with another bang as the financial asset inflation of the 1980s and 1990s collapses. A new system is now required. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 7 Just as the Bretton Woods system was never repaired due to its flaws, so too will it be impossible to rebuild the floating rate system of the past twenty-seven years. The sooner we admit to its total failure, the better. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 8 We must understand the serious flaw in the current system that is playing havoc with world markets. When license is given to central banks to inflate a currency, they eventually do so. Money can be inflated for only so long until serious problems arise. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 9 That is what we are witnessing today. The world-wide fragile financial system is now collapsing, and tragically the only cry is for more credit inflation because the cause of our dilemma is not understood. An attempt at credit stimulation with interest rates below one percent, is doing nothing for Japan’s economy and for a good reason: It is the wrong treatment for the wrong diagnosis. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 10 If the problem was merely that there were not enough money, then money creation alone could make us all millionaires and no one would have to work. But increasing the money supply does not increase wealth. Only work and savings do that. The deception comes because, for a while for the lucky few, benefits are received when governments inflate the currency and pass it out for political reasons. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 11 But in time the free ride comes to an end. Even the beneficiaries suffer the inevitable consequences of a philosophy that teaches wealth comes from money creation and that central banks are acceptable central economic planners -- even in countries such as the United States where many pay lip service to free markets and free trade. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 12 The tragedy in the end is far more damaging to the innocent than any benefit that was supposed to be delivered to the people as a whole. There is no justifiable trade-off. The costs far exceed the benefits. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 13 A program to prevent this from happening is necessary. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 14 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. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 15 Second, Congress should legalize the Constitutional principle that gold and silver be legal tender by prohibiting sales and capital gains taxes from being placed on all American legal tender coins. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 16 Third, we must abandon the tradition of bailing out bad debtors, foreign and domestic. No International Monetary Fund and related institution funding to prop up bankrupt countries, and no Federal Reserve-orchestrated bailouts such as Long Term Capital Management LP. Liquidation of bad debt and investments must be permitted. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 17 Fourth, policies must conform to free markets and free trade. Taxes, as well as government spending, should be lowered. Regulations should be greatly reduced, and all voluntary economic transactions in hiring practices should be permitted. No control on wages and prices should be imposed. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 18 Following a policy of this sort could quickly restore growth and stability to any failing economy and soften the blow for all those about to experience the connections that have been put in place by previous years of mischief, mismanagement and monetary inflation. !CITE: 101998 Texas Straight Talk 19 October 1998 verse 19 Nothing but a free market, sound money approach to our economics can guarantee personal liberty or offer greater potential for fiscal rewards. Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 !TITLE: The Ominous Budget Deal !DATE: 26 October 1998 !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 1 October 26, 1998 !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 2 The Ominous Budget Deal !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 3 Measure lets foreign inspectors into US facilities, keeps troops in Bosnia !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 4 More than 8,000 pages of small print governmentese make up the Omnibus spending package recently approved by the US Congress, over the objections of myself and numerous other conservatives from Texas and around the country. The devilish details hidden in the package will remain obscured for weeks or months, until Americans have the chance to scour through the pages. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 5 But one thing is clear, the omnibus package has ominous implications for those Americans concerned about our national security. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 6 Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this package is the implementation of the international Chemical Weapons Convention. Under the terms of this convention, and approved in the omnibus package, the US must now open our weapons manufacturing and military storage sites to international inspectors. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 7 For the first time, United Nations inspectors will be allowed to operate on US soil as if we were a rogue nation threatening international stability. That we are allowing foreign governments and inspectors to dictate how we protect ourselves is unconscionable. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 8 While most people would agree that the use of so-called "chemical weapons" is deplorable, we also do not like the thought of ever having to use force. Unfortunately, just as the use of force in self-defense is required and we must never limit the right of Americans to protect themselves, so should we as a nation jealously defend our right to use any means necessary to safeguard ourselves from potential adversaries. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 9 At the same time this omnibus package was allowing foreign inspectors on to American soil, it provided more than $225 million to keep American soldiers stuck in the middle of the Bosnian conflict. While many of us in Congress want to see our troops brought home from the president’s little police action, this legislative monstrosity continues funding this relic of Vietnam-style interventionism. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 10 Of course, that $225 million is only a drop in the foreign spending bucket, with approaching $50 billion of taxpayer cash being sent overseas. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 11 One of the most egregious expenditures is $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund. Conservatives have battled for the past year to stop more money from going to this corrupt organization that props-up the failed economies of two-bit dictators the world-over. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 12 It just isn’t a good trade-off: sending our troops to fight winless wars which have no impact on our security while funneling tax dollars to organizations which operate in direct conflict with US values, so at the same time foreign inspectors can come here to weaken our defense. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 13 While there are many possible explanations about how these heinous line-items entered the omnibus budget, the way they stayed was the sheer size of the document. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 14 If the devil is indeed in the details, then we should all prepare for what else is still buried in the lines of ink. !CITE: 102698 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 15 The omnibus is an ominous package, indeed. Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 !TITLE: Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again !DATE: 02 November 1998 !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 1 November 2, 1998 !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 2 Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 3 Latest plan sets dangerous precedence with US intervention !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 4 Not a year goes by, it seems, without yet another end being announced to the centuries old conflict in the Middle East. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 5 In the late 1970s, two men won the Noble Prize for securing a lasting peace in the region. Of course, the ink was barely dry on the deal before hostilities began anew. How many times since have we seen Muslim and Israeli leaders solemnly shaking hands in front of US president, with all sides proclaiming that a new age has come? Almost too many to count. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 6 But what is the point in counting them? They have all resulted in the same thing: more violence. Often the peace-talks and signing ceremonies last longer than the actual cease-fires. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 7 So these last weeks have been less than riveting as our president (one cynically might insert the phrase "diverting attention from his domestic problems") met in yet another round of tense negotiations with the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian chairman. While all three were "cautiously optimistic" in their comments to the press, the people in the Middle East – on both sides – were disgusted. One Israeli Member of Parliament has drafted a measure for a "no confidence" vote in the Prime Minister, the kiss of political death in their system, while people violently demonstrated in the streets. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 8 The negotiations, and their product, became much more interesting as the details have been released. ‘Interesting’ may not be the right word; perhaps ‘scary’ works better. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 9 Once again the United States is acting out of its league in trying to induce Israel to trade their security for an almost certain temporary peace, while attempting to persuade Palestinians to accept only a fraction of what they want. While past meddling has resulted mostly in US commitments to sending more tax dollars as aid to both sides, this time the costs may be much greater. Costly in lives, costly in national security, and costly in precedence. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 10 One aspect of the recently brokered deal calls for the US Central Intelligence Agency to monitor both sides for compliance with the no-hostilities clauses. This raises numerous concerns, not the least of which is simply the mechanics of our CIA doing such a thing. How are they to make sure no one is harboring ill will in their hearts? !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 11 This president acted far outside his bounds in agreeing to such a thing. After all, even if one can make the specious constitutional argument about the appropriateness for a civilian intelligence agency as opposed to a fully military version, it is impossible to justify using such an agency to monitor the good will between two other countries. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 12 Worse, though, is the possibility of the US being blamed for future problems because of our "monitoring." If a terrorist bomb explodes, many will ask, why wasn’t the US doing its job? Worse, if a terrorist bomb planted by one group or the other is stopped by the US, what will keep that side from making their next target US citizens abroad? Or at home? !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 13 We are then faced with an ever-increasing national security risk of protecting citizens abroad and at home from terrorists who blame us for interfering in their holy wars and causes. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 14 This latest peace deal is most damaging in the precedence it sets. The top demand of the Israelis was that the US must release convicted American spy Jonathon Pollard to their custody or face the prospect of that country walking out. Pollard was a US Navy intelligence officer who, in the mid-1980s, began selling US secrets to Israel. He was sent to jail for life for his treason, but the Israeli government wants him freed. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 15 During the Cold War the US would release Iron Curtain spies in exchange for Americans or our allies. At least in the Cold War there was a direct US interest at stake. Not now; our nation is being told that if we do not release to his controllers a man who sold-out our country, then Israel would rather stay at war with the Palestinians. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 16 How’s that for international blackmail? If the president does not agree to release this treacherous spy, then we get blamed for the peace process falling apart. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 17 Of course, if history is our guide, blaming the US will be simply an exercise in window dressing. The problems in the Middle East are not political ones, and therefore cannot be solved by American politicians and their soundbite platitudes. To think a deal signed by these three men will have any meaningfully positive effect is naïve. !CITE: 110298 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 18 There are many reasons to believe that peace will never reign in the land of the Jordan River while both sides lay claim to the region. One thing is certain, however, the United States cannot stick its nose into that mess without expecting to get punched from both sides. Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 !TITLE: Privacy tops agenda !DATE: 09 November 1998 !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 1 Privacy tops agenda !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 2 Restoration of rights should lead in 106th Congress !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 3 With the 1998 election completed and there being several weeks before the start of the 106th Congress, this is a prime opportunity to examine what will be my legislative priorities for the coming session. To paraphrase a conservative activist of the 1960s, a priority should be erasing the bad laws, not creating new ones. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 4 Perhaps the most pressing issue before our nation is that of personal privacy. The last several years have seen a dramatic rise -- though certainly not discussed by the press or in politically polite company -- in attempts by the government to claim greater privileges in violating the privacy of American citizens. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 5 For a Republican Member of Congress like me, it would perhaps be more comforting to claim that these incidents were all being perpetrated by the "liberal Democrats." While accusing the Republicans of violating his privacy, President Clinton’s Administration has indeed been at the front of the charge to increase the government’s ability to pry into our personal affairs and monitor our movements, he has had many willing allies in the so-called "conservative" camp. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 6 From a national database containing the private medical history of every American to a national identification card and granting broad new authorities to the FBI in wiretapping, many on both sides of the political aisle have been working to erode our tradition of privacy. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 7 This past year saw several minor victories for those of us wanting to turn-back this trend toward a more intrusive government. We succeeded in forestalling implementation of the national medical database and the national ID for one calendar year. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 8 Under the guise of "preventing fraud," the medical database would require that every aspect of an individual’s medical history be linked together and easily accessible to government officials and researchers. And what is accessible to government officials and researchers for "good" purposes is also accessible to computer hackers. Suddenly companies would pay for "illegal" information on your medical history, to determine the risk you pose to their benefits package. Or, a political opponent brings up an embarrassing tidbit from your medical past. Or ... the possibilities are endless, including the likelihood that patients will stop confiding in their doctors if it is possible that those remarks could be transcribed into a computer database. Of course, the ultimate solution is to exclude government from its unconstitutional role as a health care provider. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 9 A national ID poses no less serious a threat. Under the 1996 legislation authorizing the creation of this new monstrosity, no American can travel by air between the states or internationally without a national ID card after October 1, 2000. Further, doctors will be required to see the ID before offering care, and no one will be allowed to receive federal benefits without their card. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 10 A fundamental question that must be addressed is this: why does the government need to know our every move? Without fail, the answer is always "fighting crime." But at what point does the "fighting" of crime become itself a crime? !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 11 We were unsuccessful in stopping the Administration from implementing "roaming wiretaps." It has been the case up until now that the FBI or other agency can only tap those phone lines that are approved by a court once probable cause has been shown. While some (including myself) believe that the courts have been too liberal in allowing taps, at least there has been a passing acknowledgement that violating privacy, even of someone suspected of engaging in criminal activity, is not a trivial matter. Now, however, these agencies want the power to tap any phone a suspected criminal may use. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 12 How would this work? If someone you know is suspected by the government of doing something criminal, and that friend comes over for dinner, the FBI wants the authority to tap your line without a court order -- just in case the criminal uses your phone. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 13 How long would the tap be in place? What if they heard something they would not otherwise hear (say, you and your brother-in-law in another state making a casual $1 bet on a college football game)? !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 14 Benjamin Franklin once wrote that those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. The application of this quote to the privacy issue is unmistakable. We have become so consumed as a nation with "fighting crime" that many are willing to give up their liberties, those precious gifts of our creator secured by the blood of soldiers, to secure the illusion of eliminating criminal behavior. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 15 Criminal law enforcement, of course, is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 16 We as a nation must jealously guard our constitutional rights and American heritage of liberty. To assume we can at the same time be a nation of liberty and have a government which monitors our every move and word is foolishly inconsistent. !CITE: 110998 Texas Straight Talk 09 November 1998 verse 17 The restoration and protection of personal privacy is, and will remain, a key issue for 1999, for the 106th Congress, and for our nation. Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 !TITLE: Wrong debate in House 'leadership' race !DATE: 16 November 1998 !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 1 November 16, 1998 !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 2 Wrong debate in House ‘leadership’ race !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 3 Focus is on personality and form, rather than ideological substance !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 4 Is leadership important? Of course it is, but current contests for House leadership positions won’t make much difference for our nation. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 6 The most-often-made claim of leadership candidates is that, if elected, they can best balance the demands of the competing special interest groups. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 7 One candidate, in seeking my vote for a leadership position, explained that he was more "telegenic" and could therefore better portray "the party" to the American public on TV. Another said he should be elected because he could, in a legislative sense "make the train run on time." !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 9 Too often the leadership debate is only over which version of government intervention we want. Those seeking high office often pay lip service to "less government," but their voting records rarely show a consistent opposition to big government. So the debates are more over form than substance -- TV performance, getting the growing budget passed on time, satisfying the multitude of demands from the countless groups that have come to believe they are entitled to taxpayer largesse. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 10 The clashes are over big-government details: the welfare poor versus the welfare rich; a foreign policy of propping up right-wing dictators versus left-wing dictators; a war on poverty or a war on drugs; "protecting" the environment or bailing out the IMF. But in the Halls of Congress, little said and less is done about getting the government out of our lives, out of our wallets and off our land. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 11 In 1994 the American people expressed a desire for leaders who push for less government. The lackadaisical effort, poor results and perceived sell-outs of the last four years have disillusioned those voters. So in 1998, voters were demoralized to the point of simply boycotting the polls, adding to the post-WWII trend of an understandable apathy. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 12 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. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 13 The leadership debate generated by Speaker Gingrich’s departure has been an exciting event for the inside-the-beltway crowd, but did not generate the true debate over philosophical leadership that will determine the course of our nation for years to come. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 14 The contest is not about choosing between big or small government, but merely endorsing the one version of Republican big government over another that can "best compete" with a Democrat version of big government. We should expect continued clashes over whose ox is getting gored and whose friends are receiving benefits, but not over questions of the appropriateness of government goring any ox or rewarding/harming political bedfellows. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 15 We should all hope for the day when choosing leaders means choosing between those who endorse big government and those who pursue the form of government prescribed by the Constitution. !CITE: 111698 Texas Straight Talk 16 November 1998 verse 16 Eventually, we will need to be led away from the interventionist philosophy that so many leaders of the twentieth century have thrust upon us. The current jockeying for positions of power in Washington, while politically fascinating, will unfortunately not significantly change the direction of our country. Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 !TITLE: Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems !DATE: 23 November 1998 !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 1 November 23, 1998 !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 2 Schizophrenic foreign policy leads to problems !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 3 Saber rattling covers serious flaws in approach to other nations !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 4 Sabers are again being rattled by the Clinton Administration, with thousands of troops dispatched to a remote corner of the world to implement a United Nations policy which very few of the "Nations" support, and none are willing to bankroll. Who is the bad guy of the week? !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 5 That trusty villain Saddam Hussein. Remember him? Trained by our government, supported with our tax dollars, encouraged by our leaders. He became the global miscreant after he -- a thug, no doubt -- invaded another country of thuggish status. But the country he invaded was run by thugs with whom we had a closer relationship than he, so Saddam's Iraq became the new target of hatred and scorn -- and misuse of American military might. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 6 Our relationship with the Republic of Iraq over the last two decades is a case study in all that is wrong with our national foreign policy. We prop-up immoral dictators, making them our friends and allies at the whim of one administration in keeping with the political correctness of the day, only to completely reverse our course a few years later for no logical reasons. When an individual behaves that way, clinicians refer to it as schizophrenia. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 7 We must either be engaged in a purely schizophrenic foreign policy, or we must admit to there being such a thing as "good thugs versus bad thugs." Or, we have to say our policies are driven by the commercial interests of big business (to "protect" the availability of foreign oil, in the case of Iraq). It is hard to decide which of the three could be worse. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 8 In the end, though, it is our soldiers who bear the brunt of the policy, for they are used to clean up of the messes our vacillating positions create. The United States created Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, so when he became what he was created to become, we destroy him, but in the process put at risk the lives of soldiers and Americans abroad. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 9 But the use of the military is a great way to divert attention from our foreign policy failures. For when our kids go off to battle, no one dare oppose the action, for that is seen as opposing them. The blood of our nation's youth, all too often, is spilt as if it can wipe away the policy sins of the Congress and the President. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 10 Of course, the decision to send troops out to mope up our mistakes is never presented in such a fashion. Instead we talk about needing to make the world safe. Exactly how and from what is obscured. For since we are often then ones who create these villians (such as Hussein) in the first place, perhaps the best way to make the world safe for the US to re-examine its basic foreign policy. In medicine, a doctor can either treat the symptom or the cause. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 11 Hussein and his ilk are in so many ways the symptoms of the disease of 20th Century imperialism. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 12 The only constitutional -- and therefore legal -- use of our military is in the direct protection of US sovereignty. While we expend billions of dollars and countless lives to (unsuccessfully) oust third-rate dictators who have absolutely no ability to threaten our nation on the basis that they might attain "weapons to mass destruction," we all but ignore real threats (such as the Chinese, North Koreans, military renegades in Russia, Syria, Pakistan, and others). !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 13 We must make radical changes in our approach to foreign policy. (1) Trade and engagement encourage not only peace, but allows individuals currently living under despots to have intimate contact with free peoples, showing them a better way exists. (2) Understanding the history of a region prevents us from trying to step in and determine "winners" and "losers" by settling "peace" among peoples who have been waging war since before Columbus sailed the seas. And, (3) ending the give-away of tax dollars to various countries is not only more responsible for our people, but less likely to antagonize nations as they compare who is and is not on the American dole for how much. George Washington encouraged our nation to be friends with all and enemies with none. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 14 While we cannot control what attitudes of nations have toward the United States and her people, we can mitigate hostilities by not giving those nations more reasons to despise us. !CITE: 112398 Texas Straight Talk 23 November 1998 verse 15 Sadly, though, until we engage in a more constructive foreign policy, we can expect the hear the rattling of sabers each time a president needs to divert attention from whatever problems, or the United States wants to wipe under the rug the interventionist mess created by our schizophrenia. Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 !TITLE: Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching !DATE: 30 November 1998 !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 1 November 30, 1998 !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 2 Privacy Busters: Big Bank is watching !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 3 New FDIC regs require banks to violate customers privacy !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 4 "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. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 5 This massive new program -- euphemistically called "Know Your Customer" -- would convert our nation's banks into wholly owned subsidiaries of the government-wide movement to invade every aspect of Americans' privacy. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 6 The end-effect of the new regulations will be that law-abiding American citizens will be spending more of their time trying to prove themselves innocent of unnamed crimes before federal agents. For example, an individual decides to sell his car through a classified ad in the newspaper, and quickly finds a buyer, who hands over the cash. Now, our happy car-seller is still shopping around for the vehicle he wants, so he wisely deposits the large cash into his account. Unfortunately, that simple act could trigger an alarm within the bank's computers, alerting to the fact that this customer never makes such large deposits. The bank will be required to notify a host of federal agencies, which will likely dispatch agents to question the man, assuming he must be a drug dealer, arms smuggler or terrorist. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 7 Sound loony? It is. But that is precisely what will be imposed on banks if these new regulations take effect. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 8 Under these regulations, banks will be required to first create a profile of all new and current customers. The profile will include such information as their credit history and other standard financial reviews, but will be expanded to include the customer's deposit and withdrawal habits. This information will be gathered over the first few months of the account's creation. After that, any account activity that deviates from the profile will be considered suspicious behavior. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 9 Not only will "unusual" deposits into your account trigger suspicion, but so too might large cash withdrawals. Let us return to our friend selling the car. Instead of selling his car, though, let us say he saved $100 each month for two years, so that he could by his teenage daughter a used car. On the teen's birthday, so Dad goes heads off to by a vehicle, first stopping at the bank to withdraw the $2,400 he had carefully saved. Again, such an action would likely put this man in the position of having to defend himself against charges of buying drugs, laundering money, tax evasion or some other crime. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 10 The government regulators defend the new rules, saying that such measures are needed to "combat illicit activities." !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 11 But at the expense of law-abiding citizen's privacy? And with the resources of private institutions? While such egregious violations of individual rights are common in totalitarian regimes (Hitler's National Socialists elevated such abuses to a perverse art), they cannot be tolerated in a free society. The regulators say these new banking rules are required under existing banking laws. If that is the case, I will gladly relieve them of that burden by introducing, at the beginning of the 106th Congress in January, legislation to repeal those laws. Somehow, though, I imagine such action will not stop them, only slow them down. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 12 That an innocent man may be presumed guilty lest he prove himself otherwise is a concept embraced more and more by our government regulators and lawmakers, though in absolute conflict with our national legal tradition. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 13 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. !CITE: 113098 Texas Straight Talk 30 November 1998 verse 14 In a society founded in freedom and liberty, individuals must be allowed to engage in life without fear of their actions being monitored and misinterpreted by zealous government agents. Sadly, that is not the burgeoning legacy of the 20th Century. Big government, big banks, big… everything is watching and waiting. Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 !TITLE: Free speech is good medicine !DATE: 07 December 1998 !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 1 December 7, 1998 !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 2 Free speech is good medicine !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 3 Nanny State mentality must be rejected !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 4 Free speech is the essence of our society. Without the ability to freely speak one's mind and make claims of the correctness of one's perspective, no other freedom is secure. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 5 In a society based upon the premise of liberty, free speech is restrained by free minds. Individuals are able to discern the important from the whimsical, the rational from the ludicrous. Under the precepts of liberty, while one is allowed to make their claims freely, no one is compelled to provide a forum or even listen. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 6 While much lip service is paid to this belief in respect to political dialogue, there is a trend to limit free speech in our medicinal dialogue. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 7 In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration has quietly begun limiting the speech rights of Americans. For as disturbing as this may be from an ideological perspective, it portends ominous possibilities for people's very lives. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 8 Under the guise of "protecting" consumers, the FDA is moving to prevent sellers of natural vitamins and similar products from making claims of potential benefits. Even if one could constitutionally justify the FDA's ability to limit free speech in the name of "protection," it is clear that such restrictions only serve to harm consumers. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 9 This harm comes from limiting the information which consumers have before them. It foolish to think that any one doctor is aware of everything on the market which can help a patient maintain their good health, or recover from illness more rapidly. As a physician, I have always preferred working with an informed patient. They would sometimes be aware of new treatments, medicines or advances that I may have not yet studied. Sometimes that information would lead to new treatment for that patient, other times not, but the more information and choices available to the patient, the better. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 10 It is also foolish to think that the motives of the FDA are as pure as some would have us believe. As an entity run by politicians, the FDA is susceptible to the same political shenanigans as other government agencies. Friends of politicians get preferential treatment in military construction, tax-code revisions and highway projects. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 11 In the same way, the large pharmaceutical companies are also big campaign donors to both parties. Their goal? Not highway projects, but FDA rules designed to ensure they maintain large profits and keep upstart companies out. Even though reliable scientific data indicates a particular naturally occurring substance can safely be of benefit to some consumers, there is little incentive for the large companies to manufacture those because the profit margin is so narrow, especially compared to that of synthetic drugs. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 12 Opposition to the FDA's unilateral control of our nation's medicinal drug market is seen as heretical to the concept of government-knows-best. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 13 Even assigning the most innocent of motives to the FDA's designs on free speech and commerce is disturbing, for it reflects the ever-growing Nanny State mentality of Washington, DC. Lawmakers and bureaucrats are convinced that they are smarter, better informed and care more about all Americans than do those Americans themselves. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 14 After all, goes the pro-FDA reasoning, how can consumers be protected from dangerous products by anyone but the government? Given how often the FDA grants approval then later revokes their endorsement after the item is found unsafe, the better question might be how to protect consumers from FDA-approved products. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 15 Should a manufacturer produce an unsafe product -- whether it is a vehicle or a drug -- then injured consumers can take their grievance to civil court for redress. And if false claims are made in an attempt to get sales, the charge of fraud can be levied by those aggrieved. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 16 Most Americans look for the seal of approval from the AAA, Good Housekeeping, U.L., Better Business Bureau and multitude of other private sources when shopping for goods and services. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 17 To think the conscientious American cannot also examine the claims of vitamin manufacturers and make informed decisions for personal use in consultation with her physician, family, friends and others is recklessly condescending. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 18 The growing Nanny State assumes Americans are mindless sheep in need of the omnipotent wisdom of the government in every aspect of their lives. In reality, what America need is less government and more individual responsibility. !CITE: 120798 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 19 Project FREEDOM. Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 !TITLE: Medical costs can be cut with freedom !DATE: 14 December 1998 !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 1 December 14, 1998 !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 2 Medical costs can be cut with freedom !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 3 Allowing consumers access to MSAs will improve health care !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 4 An often-made claim is that it is expensive to be sick in America. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 5 That may be true, though no more so than any of the more socialist systems in the world perceived as "inexpensive" by those desiring similar government programs here. In those nations, the cost is hidden in individual tax-rates in excess of fifty percent, so the extremely high costs for care are still being paid by the patient, they just don't write the check to the doctor, they write it to the tax collector. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 6 The reality is that for Americans major expense is not in major illnesses (insurance bears most of the brunt in typical cases), but in routine care. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 7 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. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 8 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. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 9 Most obviously, there is the direct government meddling. Bureaucrats, under authority granted to them by years of irresponsible congressional action, now dictate how medical care is to be offered, in what timetables, quantities and situations. Of course, these directives have nothing to do with the realities of medicine or even the demands of the market, but are simply political directives issued for soundbite effectiveness. While sounding nice, these regulations increase costs by forcing the medical provider to expend greater resources to meet the regulations. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 10 Resources once devoted to assisting patients with their needs must be diverted to meeting bureaucratic regulations. Federal regulations imposed on state governments regarding medical care delivery, or on insurance providers, or employers, or directly on doctors and hospitals, all eventually come back to the consumer in the form of higher checkout costs. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 11 To deal with the ever-rising costs, consumers feel forced to relinquish more control to insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). At the same time, doctors are forced into the systems so that the burden of regulatory paperwork can be lifted from them. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 12 The insurers and HMOs only make matters worse by further restricting the consumer's choices and limiting the services a physician in their group can offer. The incentive to cut costs is lost, as physicians (now working essentially as low-level employees) seek to make as much as they can in the new corporate environment, will charge the maximum the HMOs allow. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 13 Consumer complaints about insurers and HMOs compel politicians to write new laws and more regulations to curry voter favor. More regulations breed more costs, limiting more choices, causing more anguish, and the cycle continues. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 14 There are several ways to break the cycle. The most obvious solution is to pull the plug on federal intervention. That, however, is tantamount to political suicide. Who wants to be depicted as wanting to stop "good" regulations and laws, and "hurt" patients? !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 15 A more viable solution is to let the consumer and his doctors pull themselves out of the system, by means of medical savings accounts. While this does not solve the entire problem, it provides a larger degree of freedom for those who desire it. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 16 Under an MSA system, a consumer could save pre-tax dollars in a special account. Those dollars would be used to pay for health care expenses, with the patient negotiating directly with the physician of their choice for the care they choose without regard to HMO rules or a bureaucrat's decision. The incentive for the physician is getting paid in cash as the service is rendered, rather than waiting months for an HMO or insurance provider's billing cycle. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 17 With the cash for the MSAs coming from pre-tax dollars, most Americans could afford deposits that would cover routine expenses families' experience in a year. To cover larger expenses, major-medical insurance policies are readily available and fairly inexpensive. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 18 Medical care will always be expensive, regardless of the system. The real question is how much freedom will a patient have in determining the care they receive. It is only when the patient controls the purse strings of his own money that he will have that freedom. !CITE: 121498 Texas Straight Talk 14 December 1998 verse 19 Project FREEDOM. Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 !TITLE: Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes !DATE: 21 December 1998 !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 1 December 21, 1998 !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 2 Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 3 Congress must reclaim from president power to declare war !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 4 No proposition is more serious than placing in harms' way the lives of our nation's soldiers. Wars are instituted by governments, but it is the youth that pay the ultimate price. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 5 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. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 6 When our young men in uniform were sent into battle last week by the president (regardless of whether for honorable or dishonorable reasons), it was in direct contradiction to the United States Constitution, in keeping with the history of the past half-century. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 7 Despite the thousands of Americans who have died in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and other locales, there has not been a declared war since World War II. Each of those actions occurred without the constitutional requirement of a declaration of war. In reality many of our nation's young men died in the pitch of battle and war, but in the coldness of the law, they fell -- depending on the case -- in "police actions," "peacekeeping missions" or "support operations," with the authority usually coming from the United Nations, rather than the US Congress. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 8 In what should be regarded as the gravest of all crimes, these citizens were sent to their deaths unconstitutionally. And, it should be noted, for actions we lost. We lost those wars simply because they were not matters of urgency in protecting our national security, but political battles waged to appease one interest group or another. Without the full resolve of Congress and a declaration of war to protect our security, our military must deal with such vague politically correct objectives as "reducing the ability" of a foreign leader to potentially do something. How does one define a "reduced ability," let alone bring such an objective to fruition? !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 9 It is commonly, but incorrectly, assumed that a president has the authority to send troops into battle, though under our Constitution, the highest law of the land, he does not. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 10 Sadly, though, Congress has abdicated -- unconstitutionally -- its solemn responsibility in this matter. Members of Congress are eager to let presidents drop bombs on foreign nations for many reasons, though the underlying one is that it relieves them of personal responsibility while giving each a sense of strength and power. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 11 An attempt was made to rectify this situation in the early 1970s, with the introduction of the War Powers Act, following the Korea and Vietnam fiascoes. The legislation originally would have moved us closer to the Constitution. What passed, however, has made things far worse in the intervening 25 years. Now the law allows presidents to send troops into any battle, anywhere, for any reason, without Congress having any chance to voice even opposition until long after lives have been endangered. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 12 Under the War Powers Act, a president can send troops into battle to honor a UN request or to divert attention from personal problems. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 13 Often, of course, the military industrial complex and their allies in Congress push for meaningless resolutions supporting the action, even if the action is objectively wrong. Remember, these are not war declarations, but resolutions rubber stamping presidential actions. The rhetoric used, then , is that one must vote for these resolutions to "support the troops." !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 14 Never addressed, of course, is the absurdity of how one can "support" soldiers by sending them into unconstitutional battles where they will die for causes other than protecting our security interests. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 15 Most recently, the Congress interrupted the important impeachment debate to pass a two-part resolution. The first half simply offered support for our troops, and was unobjectionable. The second half, though, encouraged the president, praised his unconstitutional actions, and recommended that he engage in further unconstitutional actions by trying to topple the leadership of Iraq and replace it with what would amount to a US taxpayer supported puppet regime. Of course, voting against the second part is depicted as the fans of unconstitutional war as opposing our troops. Nevertheless, I voted against the resolution because I cannot sanction abuses of our Constitution. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 16 Congress should support the troops by taking them out of senseless danger, not encouraging a soon-to-be impeached president to risk further the lives of enlisted men. !CITE: 122198 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 17 The gravest crime against our Constitution is the one never addressed: the senseless slaughter of our soldiers, our best and brightest. Perhaps one day Congress will reclaim its constitutionally mandated power of sole authority over matters of war. Until then, more young men will die senseless deaths. Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 !TITLE: Embargoes most destructive at home !DATE: 28 December 1998 !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 1 December 28, 1998 !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 2 Embargoes most destructive at home !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 3 Reckless government tool simply does not work !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 4 Few government policies are as destructive to our economy as the "embargo." !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 5 While such action has the sound of strong, punitive action, it is in reality a failed principle that the experience of the last four decades has proven doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 6 For this discussion, though, it is important to make sure all the terms are understood. An embargo is a policy by which the president decides that US producers cannot sell their goods to the people of another country, in an attempt to punish those people's leaders. Economic engagement, on the other hand, is allowing Americans to sell their products where they wish, to whom they wish. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 7 It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately, involves the US government taking Americans' tax dollars to prop-up other nations. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 8 In the brief history of this reckless tool, not a single embargo has actually worked, though some will fruitlessly try to claim the case of South Africa as a victory. The embargoed nations still exist, with the hated leaders firmly in power. It is for several reasons that embargoes do not accomplish the tasks for which they are levied. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 9 First, embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of American-grown rice, he will get it one way or the other. For the poor peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be unavailable. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 10 It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine and other products to individuals actually benefit them. Embargo advocates will claim that denying people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised leader. The reality, though, is that the people's hostilities are more firmly directed at America. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 11 Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, has written in the Wall Street Journal that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power." To imagine that we can somehow spread the message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 12 One need look no further than Cuba. For more than thirty years we have embargoed the country in an attempt to drive Fidel Castro from power. At last check, he was as powerful as ever. Or we can look at the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage economically. Of course, the Soviet Union has collapsed. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 13 Second, embargoes greatly harm our people. As the American agricultural industry continues to develop new technology that reduces the cost of operation and increases the yield, it becomes more important for farmers and ranchers to find markets outside the United States to sell their goods so they can make ends meet. By preventing our farmers and ranchers from competing in the world market, we deny them very profitable opportunities. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 14 Third, embargoes are more often levied for political points, rather than sound policy. In times of war, it is perhaps reasonable to expect government to prevent Americans from selling goods to our declared enemies. But in a time of peace, it is difficult to imagine the benefits to our people, or others, of an embargo. There was no consistency in having had economic relations with the Soviet Union, a nation that pointed nuclear missiles at our shores for decades, while refusing to allow American pharmaceutical companies to sell life-saving drugs to the people in Cuba, a poor island country with no weapons that could endanger us. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 15 If the policy of embargoes is to continue, then Congress should have final oversight of implementation and duration. But that is a big "if." !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 16 Government meddling is always destructive to the free market; people will inevitably make wiser decisions about how to spend their money, with whom, and when, than politicians in Washington. Embargoes simply do not accomplish the ends advocates claim to desire, and are extremely harmful to the well being of Americans. !CITE: 122898 Texas Straight Talk 28 December 1998 verse 17 Like no other form of government meddling, embargoes are destructive and should be ended without delay. Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 !TITLE: Federal government needs to step out of education !DATE: 04 January 1999 !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 1 January 4, 1999 !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 2 Federal government needs to step out of education !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 3 Parents, students, teachers need more choices, fewer restrictions !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 4 No single issue motivates elected officials like education. Addressing the educational woes of our nation is a task both political parties loudly claim as theirs, each claiming to hold the "best" solution. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 5 Sadly, though, the solutions often presented are nothing more than different sides of the same big-government coin. President Clinton says he wants to fund a hundred-thousand new teachers for the classrooms, though the specifics of the program mean billions of dollars with more federal control and more bureaucrats, but not many teachers. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 6 A lot of Republicans want to collect more federal taxes and then disperse the funds in form of grants to the states. But that involves more federal bureaucracy costing millions and giving us more bureaucrats to administer the grants. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 7 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. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 8 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. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 9 What's needed to release this trend toward mediocrity is not more federal spending and programs, but rather less federal intervention and more real parental control. No one should oppose making sure kids get the best education possible. Of course, the vested interests in public education programs are the first to oppose parental choice, because any given parent might choose an option other than the government schools. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 10 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. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 11 I will continue to support initiatives that let parents keep their money and decide how best to educate their kids. One such initiative is my Family Education Freedom Act. This legislation would allow parents to take up to $3,000 per year per child for education-related expenses such as tutoring, field trips, computers, tuition and books, and would be equally accessible and useful for parents who place their children in public, private or home school settings. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 12 Another useful tool for parents is the Education Savings Account. This would allow parents to place pre-tax dollars in designated accounts to spend on their children's education. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 13 Allowing parents the financial freedom to choose between more choices can be only beneficial. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 14 A very real concern in education is that while there a great number of people who would make fine teachers, they are unwilling to enter the field because the salary is simply not competitive with what they can make in other professions. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 15 With the seating of the new Congress, I plan on introducing legislation that would give significant tax breaks to classroom teachers of both public and private schools. Simply cutting federal taxes can amount to a significant increase in take-home pay and would go a long way in making the profession more attractive to a perspective teacher. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 16 If we are serious about wanting to improve the system of education in our nation, we should be willing -- for the sake of our children's future -- to stop doing those things which simply do not work. Experience has proven that federal intervention in education doesn't work. !CITE: 010499 Texas Straight Talk 04 January 1999 verse 17 Parents know best the educational needs of their children. It's time for the federal government to get out of the way. Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 !TITLE: Protecting integrity of Social Security !DATE: 11 January 1999 !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 1 January 11, 1999 !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 2 Protecting integrity of Social Security !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 3 Legislation protects fund from political abuse !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 4 There has been much rhetoric in recent months about "saving Social Security"; empty rhetoric. Politicians have taken up those three words as a mantra, hoping a constant repetition of those words will draw America's attention from the corrupt use of system funds, which continue to be abused by Washington. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 5 Almost immediately after being sworn in as a Member of the 106th Congress on January 6, 1999, I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act, legislation to provide real protection of the trust fund. This legislation is identical to a bill 94 other Members and I cosponsored during the last Congress. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 6 Regardless of what one thinks of the public policy that gives us Social Security, there is no denying that the funds of the program have been mismanaged and abused by the government. At every paycheck, Americans see a portion of their pay reduced by taxes taken specifically for the Social Security Trust Fund. The understanding, of course, is that the taxes are held in trust for that worker's retirement years. And because every American is issued a "Social Security" account number, the perception is further bolstered that the taxes are held in reserve for that specific person in an individual account. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 7 This was intended to be more than a matter of perception. The law enacting the Social Security system and trust fund envisioned as much. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 8 Reality, however, is much different. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 9 The Social Security Trust Fund has for decades become a slush fund for the big-government programs of Congress and the President. In fact, close to a half-a-trillion dollars have been taken from the trust fund over the year. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 10 In recent years, President Clinton and Congress have claimed to produce a balanced budget. This balancing act has only come as a result of numerous accounting shenanigans, including taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 11 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. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 12 It must be a top priority for this new Congress to restore the integrity of the Social Security trust system. The Social Security Preservation Act will do this by making it illegal for the government to use the trust funds for any purpose except administering the Social Security system. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 13 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. !CITE: 011199 Texas Straight Talk 11 January 1999 verse 14 It's time for political rhetoric to turn into realist policy. Quick passage of the Social Security Preservation Act must be a top priority of the new Congress. Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 !TITLE: Stopping the Surveillance State !DATE: 18 January 1999 !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 1 January 18, 1999 !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 2 Stopping the Surveillance State !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 3 New legislation halts privacy invasions !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 4 It was once commonly held that an external force was the greatest threat to the liberty of American citizens. Reality has proven that the greatest threat comes from within, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the growing surveillance state. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 5 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. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 6 Perhaps the most important section of the legislation is the prohibition against using the Social Security number as an identifier. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is now a national ID. The use of the Social Security number has become so widespread that most Americans must produce a Social Security number to get a fishing license, and members of Congress must show their Social Security number in order to vote on the House floor. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 7 One of the more disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the government is more in line with the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired the nation's founders. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 8 Another section of the bill will stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a "unique health identifier." This identifier would logically lead to a national database containing the detailed medical history of all Americans. As a practicing OB/GYN for more than 30 years, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity and private nature of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient placing absolute trust in the doctor not to discuss with anyone her health problems. What will happen to that trust when patients know that all information given to their doctor must be placed in a government accessible database? !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 9 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. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 10 Many in Congress sincerely suggest that citizens' privacy could be protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, but the fact is that legislative "privacy protections" are inadequate. Recent history demonstrates that federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous officials from accessing supposedly protected information. Did laws stop the continuous violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials' access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 11 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. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 12 While most members of Congress are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, they will consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward the government's prying eyes. My office has been inundated with calls from around my district, state and, indeed, the nation, encouraging my efforts to thwart these attacks on our privacy. On the other hand, I have yet to meet a taxpayer who wants the government to further erode their privacy. !CITE: 011899 Texas Straight Talk 18 January 1999 verse 13 Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state. National IDs and massive government databases are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 !TITLE: A New Pandora's Box !DATE: 25 January 1999 !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 1 January 25, 1999 !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 2 A New Pandora's Box !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 3 Government invest in market must be opposed !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 4 resident Clinton raised a number of bad ideas last week in his State of the Union address. His theme for the evening was "more," as in more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxes and more violations of the Constitution. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 5 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. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 6 This is an unreasonable proposal for several reasons; it fails the critical tests of constitutionality, rational economics, and pragmatic planning. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 7 As it is, Social Security is approaching bankruptcy and doesn't have any cash to invest. For decades congresses and presidents have raided the fund to bolster big-government programs. The president's shady investment plan hinges on investing cash that simply isn't there. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 8 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. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 9 Constitutionally, there is simply no provision for allowing the federal government to become a "part owner" in private companies. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 10 One does not set money on a table at Wall Street, leave it there, then come back a few days later to collect the loot and call it investment. When one invests, they are becoming a part owner in the company or companies. With ownership comes the benefit of sharing in the profits, the risk of sharing in losses, and, perhaps most importantly, responsibility in making decisions. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 11 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. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 12 Under the president's plan, government will become a very loud part-owner of thousands of companies. And because government will want to ensure a return on its investments (which is fundamentally impossible), one shudders at the potential rules and regulations that would be imposed on the marketplace in general, and those companies specifically. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 13 This president firmly believes government knows best -- in everything. While he would deny individual Americans the right to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes to savings and investment programs of their choosing, this president would dump billions into the stock market so he and his cronies can effectively nationalize our economy, while using the proceeds to pay for more needless government programs. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 14 While Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and I are often at odds on issues of monetary policy, he perhaps best described the president's plan. "Let me just say it's not so much a trade-off of benefits versus costs. I'm frankly just hard-pressed to find any benefits there are in doing it." !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 15 Such plans not only bode wretched possibilities for the nation and economy in general, but are also harmful to the individual. Mr. Greenspan has pointed out, correctly, that some state government's already have pension plans for their employees, and that these accounts have an average return two percent or worse than privately run accounts. !CITE: 012599 Texas Straight Talk 25 January 1999 verse 16 Government investment in the stock market is a path that must not be taken, and a Pandora's Box that should never be opened. The results could be unimaginably dangerous for the nation, and simply unprofitable for the individual. Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 !TITLE: Orwellian rules face major opposition !DATE: 01 February 1999 !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 1 February 2, 1999 !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 2 Orwellian rules face major opposition !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 3 Paul legislation will restore financial privacy !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 4 It has turned into a case of government agencies against everyone else. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 5 More than 14,000 people -- average American consumers, bankers, and civil-liberties advocates -- have written federal agencies in opposition to the gross violation of privacy known by the Orwellian title "Know Your Customer." This response is even more remarkable when one realizes that the usual number generated by these agencies' rules is less than a hundred. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 6 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. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 7 Under the existing Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions already must report large transactions to the government. Under these new rules, not only would the banks have to collect the raw data on transactions like a low-level spy but will now be required to serve as the government's front-line investigators. Investigating who and what? Everyone, and everything financial. Forget the Fourth Amendment, forget the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and forget search warrants; these regulations assume everyone is as guilty as Al Capone. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 8 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. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 9 Not only does this represent a toppling of our legal heritage and a dangerous philosophic shift, but it is also a ridiculously heavy burden to place on financial institutions. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 10 The many bankers who have contacted my office have said they are not sure which is worse: the heavy toll this will take on our precious liberties, or the high cost these rules will mean for the institutions and passed on to customers. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 11 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. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 12 To combat this, I will be introducing three pieces of legislation. The first is the "Know Your Customer Sunset Act," which will immediately stop these rules from going into effect. The second is the "Bank Secrecy Sunset Act," which will force Congress to either rewrite the poorly written, abused Nixon-era program, or devolve that power to the states. The third is the "FinCEN Public Accountability Act." This legislation will require that agencies let Americans see their own "financial history" files created under current rules, much like what is required of the FBI and credit bureau reporting agencies. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 13 Congressmen are signing on these measures due in large part to the growing chorus of Americans who are saying, to paraphrase our founding fathers' cry, "don't tread on my privacy rights!" Dozens of organizations, ranging from banking and technology groups to conservative family-values coalitions to the liberal ACLU, are joining in the fight to oppose these regulations. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 14 As a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, this important threat to our financial privacy will be a top priority for me. !CITE: 020199 Texas Straight Talk 01 February 1999 verse 15 They may call their rules "Know Your Customer," but they read a lot more like "Spy on Your Neighbor." If we act quickly and properly, we have the chance to stop them. Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 !TITLE: A right to network TV? !DATE: 08 February 1999 !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 1 February 8, 1999 !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 2 A right to network TV? !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 3 Free market offers best option for viewers !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 4 Who has the "right" to view television programming? It may seem a trivial question, but it indeed strikes at a core issue for the free-market system. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 5 For the last several weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural satellite TV customers. These Americans are upset because their satellite service providers have informed them that, absent actions by Congress, they will lose access to certain network television stations and programming. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 6 Some satellite service providers have written their customers to suggest that this is "unfair" and that they have "as much right as anyone" to see network television irrespective of where they live. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 7 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. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 8 Most recently, in an attempt to protect the property rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 9 The root cause of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate "exclusive dealings" contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 10 The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. Government's attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, however, federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 11 It is within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." However, operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or "instilling competition" via "central planning" seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 12 Helpfully, network programs will not be terminated prior to March 1, 1999, and waivers may be available from the local network affiliate for those who cannot receive a signal even when using an over-the-air antenna. Moreover, technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. !CITE: 020899 Texas Straight Talk 08 February 1999 verse 13 I will continue to consistently oppose all governmental barriers to the free functioning of markets -- markets, which if allowed to function, will maximize viewer choices at the most reasonable costs. Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 !TITLE: Stopping the President's New Little War !DATE: 15 February 1999 !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 1 February 15, 1999 !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 2 Stopping the President's New Little War !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 3 Clinton would use troops to support 'Butcher of the Balkans' !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 4 A common practice since World War II has been the presidential commitment of our troops to battle without congressional approval, despite constitutional requirement to the contrary. Continuing in this dubious tradition, President Clinton recently announced he would be sending American troops, under NATO command, into strife-ridden Kosovo. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 5 Three years ago, the President sent troops into Bosnia, promising they would be home in six months. The years have passed, more than $20 billion has been spent, and our soldiers are still there. Very few seriously ask anymore when these troops will be coming home -- or even what it is they are supposed to be accomplishing. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 6 Last week I introduced House Resolution 647 to stop the president from involving us in Kosovo without first obtaining congressional approval. The measure immediately received more than a dozen cosponsors. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 7 Congress must restate its constitutional obligation to supervise the engagement of troops in hostile situations. Our Founding Fathers gave Congress the authority to determine what wars should be fought, as Congress is most directly responsible to the people. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 8 We spend less and less money every year on our own defense while spending more and more policing the world. It would be better to spend on national defense projects the money now being wasted in Bosnia, Iraq and other locales around the world. Moreover, our nation would be undeniably stronger by not having our soldiers killed in pointless "police" actions. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 9 The issue is one of responsibility. As the history of the last half-century has shown, once troops are sent into a foreign war, it is very difficult to bring them home. Without a pressing national security threat and declaration of war, there are no clear objectives, and, hence, no way to measure when a job is finished. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 10 The fact previous administrations were unchallenged in scattering troops around the world was not due to legitimately granted power, but rather abdication by Congress of responsibility to supervise out-of-control spending and reckless warring. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 11 It is remarkable that the president is planning to send troops to Kosovo, a section of Serbia. The Serbia leader, Slobodan Milosevic, is the last of the hard-line communists still ruling a former Soviet Bloc nation. For his well-documented reign of terror, Milosevic has rightfully earned the title "Butcher of the Balkans." Despite all this, the president is sending our troops to Kosovo to keep independence-minded people under the ruthless hand of Milosevic. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 12 One task to be assigned our troops will be the disarming of the Kosovo Liberation Army. While supporting Milosevic is hardly rational, it makes even less sense to take actions that will serve only to pit Kosovars against Americans. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 13 How ironic that at the dawn of this century Americans were viewed as the champions of liberty, yet in its closing days we will be using our might to support a communist butcher. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 14 Adding to the recklessness of the mission is the near-certainty that our troops will serve under the direct command of a foreign military leader, someone not answerable to Congress or our laws. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 15 Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States, nor further our national security. In fact, national security will be jeopardized as our presence in the region only increases the likelihood of needless involvement in an all-out war. Even Pentagon officials have been critical of a Kosovo operation because troops are already spread so thinly around the world, there are no defined objectives, and the resources could be better utilized. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 16 According to the US Constitution and American tradition, it is not a prerogative of the president to send troops around the world to fight the battles that do not concern us. !CITE: 021599 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 17 Congress must re-exert its constitutional authority and stop presidents from sending troops into harm's way. Most immediately, Congress must stop President Clinton's new little war in the Balkans. Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 !TITLE: The Big Lie !DATE: 22 February 1999 !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 1 February 22, 1999 !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 2 The Big Lie !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 3 Budget surplus is a fiction !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 4 By simple repetition, a lie can become accepted as truth. It is a function of human nature that if enough people hear something often enough, reality takes a back seat to the lie. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 5 "The Budget Surplus." For months "it" has been the mantra of everyone in Washington, DC. "The Budget Surplus." Everyone from the President to the Speaker of the House to TV pundits has spoken about "it" in glowingly terms. "The Budget Surplus." And there has certainly been no shortage of ideas in how to spend "it." !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 6 Too bad the "surplus" is a fairy tale. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 7 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. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 8 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. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 9 The debt will increase unless serious changes are made; changes that have nothing to do with creating more government programs and further political shenanigans. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 10 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. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 11 The time has also come for honesty in accounting. The government taxes every American at 15 percent for Social Security, using the fiction that the cash is waiting in a trust fund for retirement to placate us. We must restore the integrity of the trust funds by stopping the politicians from being able to take the money in the first place. I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, to do just that. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 12 If these trust funds are to exist, then they must be held securely, their integrity ensured by law. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 13 To the extent that the politicians are able to rob from the trust funds is the extent to which they are going to continue to lie about state of our government's fiscal soundness, and continue the reckless spending that has been the hallmark of the 20th Century. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 14 Integrity is a critical-need in our government; integrity for our trust funds and integrity in budgeting. But most importantly, we need to find integrity in our leaders. For men and women and principle will not lie, cheat and steal. !CITE: 022299 Texas Straight Talk 22 February 1999 verse 15 For too long Washington politicians have been stealing from the trust funds, cheating the budget process, and propagating lies to cover their tracks. Integrity is truly a critical need. Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 !TITLE: Phase-in of tax cuts make code more complex !DATE: 01 March 1999 !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 1 March 1, 1999 !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 2 Phase-in of tax cuts make code more complex !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 3 Americans deserve deep, across-the-board tax cuts now !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 4 As Americans begin the arduous task of preparing their tax returns for 1998, it is important to keep in mind several important changes to the tax code that could significantly affect how much they owe the government -- or how much the government needs to refund. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 5 While even the smallest tax cuts should be welcomed, the changes going into place reflect the basic problem Americans have with our current system: it is too complicated. The tax code is just getting more complicated; more forms and more time without significant tax cuts for significant numbers of people. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 6 The first measure is the Child Tax Credit. For 1998 returns, parents can claim $400 per child under the age of 17. Next year, that number will be $500 per child. The credit applies to single filers with adjusted gross incomes less than $75,000 and joint filers with incomes less than $110,000. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 7 Another important change is the threshold for exemption from the estate, or Death, taxes. The current exemption is up to $625,000. At this time next year, that exemption will have increased to $650,00. By 2006, without a change in the law, the exemption will be $1,000,000. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 8 Small business owners will have two important changes to their deductions. The first is a deduction in health insurance premiums. This year, small businesses can deduct $45% of the premiums. Next year, for tax year 1999, that deduction will be 60% of the cost. Within four years, the deduction is expected to be 100%. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 9 Come next year, small businesses will also be able to deduct up to $19,000 in expenses for tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the conduct of a trade or business. The deduction is up from the $18,500 that can be claimed on 1998's tax year. By 2003, the deduction will increase to $25,000 in 2003 and thereafter. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 10 Other changes taking effect this year are those regarding dealings with the IRS. Prior to January 19 of this year, the IRS was able to seize a "principle residence" without due process and judicial approval. Now, that practice is forbidden. In addition, taxpayers will be able to recover the "reasonable" costs they incur -- such as attorney fees -- when the IRS takes a position against a taxpayer that is not "substantially justified." !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 11 For the 1999 tax year, senior citizens should be aware of an increase in earning limits. Americans between the ages of 65 and 69 will be able to earn up to $15,500 without losing Social Security benefits, up $1,000 from the 1998 tax year. That limit is expected to increase to $30,000 in 2002. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 12 While there are some minor tax cuts, there are also some increases, most notably in Social Security, which many Americans will have felt in their first paycheck of 1999. Last year. the payroll tax was 12.4 percent levied on the first $68,400 of income. Beginning Jan. 1, that amount is levied on the first $72,600 of earnings. This raises taxes by $490 for approximately 9 million taxpayers. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 13 In almost every case of "tax cuts," the reductions are minimal. Americans are still burdened by too many taxes and regulations (which are merely hidden taxes). While initiatives that allow even a few people to save even a few dollars should not be scoffed at, Congress needs to get serious about making deep, across-the-board tax cuts. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 14 Americans should not be content with letting Congress make only small tax cuts targeted to small groups. If there is to be more than rhetorical lip-service paid to the phrase "doing the business of the people," then Congress should act immediately to scrap the Internal Revenue Service, scrap the current tax code, and replace it with something much simpler. !CITE: 030199 Texas Straight Talk 01 March 1999 verse 15 And with rates much, much lower. Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 !TITLE: Victory should be call to action !DATE: 08 March 1999 !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 1 March 8, 1999 !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 2 Victory should be call to action !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 3 Complacency must be avoided if liberty to reign !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 4 Americans may lay claim to a minor victory in the battle for liberty, if not the war. Last week, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services unanimously passed a revised version of an amendment I introduced to stop the proposed "Know Your Customer" regulations. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 5 But this amendment is tacked onto a broader bill that is not assured of passage in the House, nor the Senate, nor receiving the signature of the president. While the message sent to the regulators bent on implementing these regulations is a victory, there remains much work to be done. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 6 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. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 7 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. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 8 Even law enforcement professionals are unimpressed with the regulations. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America -- one of the largest organizations of police officers -- supported my work, stating it is "opposed to any federal directive that would require banks to implement profiling systems." !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 9 The LEAA statement goes on to read that, "Such intrusive measures will also infringe the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens while detracting from meaningful debate and discussion of measures that would improve law enforcement's crime-fighting ability." !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 10 The real problem is not the specifics of this particular set of regulations, but the entire process that allows these regulations in the first place. Unfortunately, though, there are some in Congress who irrationally believe one can violate the Constitution's strict prohibition against federal crime laws, support a multitude of big-government programs like the failed "war on drugs," yet still respect individual privacy. The logical fallacy of such a belief would be almost laughable, were it not so dangerous and irresponsible. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 11 Dangerous because those Members of Congress will now -- having witnessed a minor victory -- forget about the importance of this issue and move on to the next cause du jour. These members of Congress are content only to place inconvenient speed bumps in the way of regulators bent on undermining our form of government. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 12 I believe, however, we need to take these powers out of the hands of the regulators altogether. Government agencies should not have the power to draft an entire industry into their service, nor should they be allowed to unilaterally declare as criminal the behavior of every American citizen. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 13 This is why I will not relent in my crusade to reign in these unconstitutional agencies, which operate often in direct opposition to our form of government and tradition of liberty. !CITE: 030899 Texas Straight Talk 08 March 1999 verse 14 A minor victory in the battle for liberty should inspire us not to drift into dull complacency, but to press on with renewed vigor toward the goal before us. If we are to find true success, it will come when we devote ourselves not to political expediency, but to the full implementation of the principles of liberty. Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 !TITLE: Contentious debate produces rubber-stamp of Kosovo !DATE: 15 March 1999 !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 1 March 15, 1999 !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 2 Contentious debate produces rubber-stamp of Kosovo !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 3 If children of congress, president, were placed on frontlines, policies would be different !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 4 Pandemonium reigned on the floor of the US House of Representatives as members debated the contentious issue of President Clinton's intention to place US troops in the middle of the Kosovo civil war. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 5 President Clinton is planning on sending thousands of soldiers into harms' way for an unspecified amount of time to achieve unspecified goals and without a single shred of evidence that this internal conflict affects US interests or the safety of American citizens. The American public is outraged, military leaders says this deployment will further erode readiness, and yet Congress cannot muster the courage to tell this president "no." !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 6 The problem, of course, is that for far too long Members of Congress have endorsed the unconstitutional principle of complete presidential prerogative in military affairs. It is Congress, not the president, which is empowered to declare war. For years, though, Congress has allowed presidents -- Republican and Democrat -- to recklessly scatter our troops around the world to play the ill-conceived role of international policemen. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 7 In this current debate, liberal Democrats cannot oppose military action in Kosovo (despite their better instincts to avoid wars) because to do so would reflect badly on a president of their party. Meanwhile, the conservative Republicans (who are finally coming around to a sensible understanding of proper defense policy) must endure charges of hypocrisy if they now oppose missions similar to those rubber-stamped under Republican administrations. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 8 In an effort to appease the new federal religion of bipartisanship (I prefer non-partisanship), Republicans agreed to introduce a measure offering complete support to the president and any decision he may make regarding troops in Kosovo. Oddly, though, the measure had no binding legal effect, though it erroneously claimed to "authorize" such actions -- so much for even the notion of congressional oversight! Some Republicans -- including myself -- tried unsuccessfully to change the measure so that it would forbid, not approve, the use of troops. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 9 As the pitch of the arguments rose to partisan rancor, it became abundantly clear that nothing good would occur when the House took its vote. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 10 A House Concurrent Resolution has no binding legal authority, and is a tool used to make a public comment, but not create or alter federal law. That a non-binding resolution received barely a majority of the votes should be a clear signal to this president not to proceed as he has planned; but that is not likely to happen. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 11 The winners, as always, are those who seek war and hold our Constitution and principles of non-interventionism in disdain. The losers, of course, are the soldiers who must endure yet another endless deployment that risks their safety and lives, as well as the taxpayers who will now foot the bill for yet another exercise in foreign adventurism. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 12 During a speech on the House floor, and in conversations with like-minded colleagues, I have suggested that perhaps Presidents and Members of Congress would be less eager to intervene in every little war if their kids -- their sons, daughter, grandchildren and family -- were to be sent immediately to the frontlines of the conflict. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 13 As a Vietnam era veteran I could not help but notice that many of those calling for war on the floor of the house had no record of military service in their own biographies. Indeed many of them were the very same people who protested against the war in Vietnam. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 14 Some of those calling for war did have a military background, but I was especially glad to see heroes like former prisoner of war Sam Johnson and Randall "Duke ('Top Gun')" Cunningham, voting along with me to oppose this action. In fact, if only those congressmen who have truly seen combat had been allowed to vote, I dare say the outcome would have been greatly different. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 15 It's easy for Congresses and Presidents to be "generous" with other people's money. It's apparently just as easy for them to fight international injustice with other people's children. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 16 For those of us who cast our votes on the House floor, the pandemonium is merely inconvenient. For the men and women who must now carry out yet another mission of our horrendous foreign policy, the results are far more serious, if not deadly. !CITE: 031599 Texas Straight Talk 15 March 1999 verse 17 Addressing a different subject, though the underlying principles are the same, I quote Thomas Jefferson: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 !TITLE: Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda !DATE: 22 March 1999 !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 1 March 22, 1999 !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 2 Free trade rhetoric often obscures agenda !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 3 "Fair," protected and subsidized trade harms consumer, economy !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 4 Forces of protectionism won a victory recently; a victory over the American consumer and the principle of free trade. Of course, as with so many issues in Washington, DC, it is almost impossible to understand who are the free-traders, fair-traders and protectionists without a scorecard; and even then, of course, none of those words actually mean anything in debates on the House floor. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 5 Claiming to be watching out for the interests of everyone, Congress passed legislation that reduces the ability of Americans to purchase steel from foreign producers. The only interests being served, though, are the labor unions. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 6 Proponents of the legislation claimed foreign companies were "dumping" steel on our market. The word "dumping" is used to conjure up images of foreigners sneaking across the border under cover of darkness and selling low-quality steel in back alleys. Reality is far different from rhetoric; Americans are buying the foreign steel because it is a better value. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 7 So rather than re-examine the market (which is unwilling to pay the high-prices brought on by government regulations and union-imposed wages), the advocates of big government and forced unionism demand that Congress close down what remains of the free market. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 8 The true free market is a threat to entrenched interests and lazy minds. The free market rewards those who are willing to work hard, produce that which people demand, and at a price they are willing to pay. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 9 It is no longer politically fashionable to ask for "protection" from foreign competition. Instead, they demand that supreme "virtue" of American politics: fairness. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 10 "Fair trade!" has become the rallying cry. Sadly, though, there is little "fair" about these policies, and even less about their outcome. This "fairness" means gouging consumers for higher prices using the force of government to protect the rackets of organizations unwilling to work within the system of voluntary exchange. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 11 This "fairness" extends to other arenas. Take, for example, the situation with Cuba. For three decades national policy has forbade trade with Cuba, on the grounds that we are trying to force Castro from power. To date, that policy has not only been unsuccessful, it has backfired. But, in the name of "fairness" and "security," Cuba's poor do not have access to American inexpensive food and medicine. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 12 I have introduced HR1181, which will allow Americans to enter the Cuban market, but prevents federal tax dollars from being used to subsidize the Castro regime. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 13 For while many in Washington call themselves "free-traders," but there is nothing free about their agendas. The so-called "free-trader" in Congress is often one who believes in subsidizing trade; that is, using taxpayer dollars to prop-up foreign governments on the condition that those governments then use the money to purchase goods from certain American companies (which in turn lobby for "protections," creating a vicious cycle). !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 14 The others who misuse the "free-trade" label are the managed trade proponents. These are the ones responsible for empowering the international regulatory bureaucracies of NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization, all of which have as much in common with free trade as protectionism does. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 15 In the end, it is the American taxpayer that foots the bill. The cost comes in higher prices, higher taxes, or both. !CITE: 032299 Texas Straight Talk 22 March 1999 verse 16 True free trade involves neither protectionism nor subsidization. Free trade recognizes that market forces, not government regulations or spending packages, will best allocate resources; even across political borders. Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 !TITLE: Burning bridges !DATE: 29 March 1999 !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 1 March 29, 1999 !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 2 Burning bridges !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 3 Attacks on Kosovo unjustified, shameful !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 4 This is not a proud moment for America, as the United States military has been used to invade a sovereign nation that threatened neither our security, nor even the borders of our allies or friends. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 5 Yet, for an Administration enthralled with the notion of a paternalistic government that cares for everyone, everywhere, all the time, President Clinton's actions in Serbia should not be surprising. Just as this president believes he and his government can best order the lives of each American citizen (he recently said that Americans shouldn't be given a tax cut because they would not spend the money as wisely as he and his administration would), he is confident that he can solve the problems of the world. His track record suggests otherwise; despite the fanfare and speeches, there is still violence raging from the Middle East to Ireland -- all great "successes" for this president. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 6 For as bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited, and the efforts are quite simply not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where the violence is endless and just as tragic. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 7 Most importantly, though is the simple fact that meddling in the internal affairs of a nation involved in civil war is quite dangerous. Both sides believe themselves to be correct, and neither side will appreciate the other side receiving assistance. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 8 If anything, our involvement threatens to escalate the situation. No successful military action has ever -- or likely will ever -- involve only air power; ground troops must be involved. While a stealth jet will likely always escape the "primitive" weapons of the Serbs, a bullet aimed at a soldier can be very primitive, yet just as effective as the most modern of firearms. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 9 Some argue the US is needed to stop the spread of war. Our presence will do the opposite. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a long-desired goal, are now greatly threatened. Our bombings are likely to provoke the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 10 Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 11 Contrary to his campaign slogan, President Clinton's actions are burning bridges to the 21st Century. The tragedy is that it will be our soldiers -- our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters -- who are trapped by these senseless actions, and it will be the innocent women and children of Serbia who will bear the brunt of the bombings. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 12 Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable, even honorable. But as history shows, ethnic peace is not achieved by outside forces committing acts of war to pick and choose sides in fighting that dates back hundreds of years. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 13 The use of force and acts of war can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses, and undermine our national sovereignty. !CITE: 032999 Texas Straight Talk 29 March 1999 verse 14 This is not a proud time for the United States. Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 !TITLE: Playing with matches in the powder keg !DATE: 05 April 1999 !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 1 April 5, 1999 !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 2 Playing with matches in the powder keg !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 3 US in dangerous situation with demoralized, poorly equipped military !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 4 A weakened nation left with a dwindling supply of weapons while facing an increasingly tense situation with troops held hostage and military morale at an all-time low, as war-mongering civilian leaders are eager to spill more blood. Not a description of Iraq or Serbia, but of the US as we enter the second quarter of 1999. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 5 While downplayed by the media and the Clinton Administration, anonymous sources have revealed in news leaks that the United States is dangerously low on satellite-guided cruise and the Tomahawk missiles -- two indispensable mainstays of our air power. Yet these weapons are being expended like candy -- with apparently the same effect -- in Serbia. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 6 At the same time, this week, we learned that Russia is moving ships into Balkan Sea. While publicly remaining neutral on the US/NATO attacks on the sovereign nation of Serbia, the Russians have been traditional allies of the Serbs. Massive anti-American demonstrations in Moscow cannot long go unnoticed by the Russian politicians, whose government is, at best, tenuously held together. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 7 Finally, Americans awoke to the troubling news that three American soldiers were captured by Serbian forces and paraded on state television. Their capture reflects the basic problem with our foreign policy. These men were in Macedonia as NATO troops with a UN "peace-keeping" mission that ended in February. The reason they were still in the region -- and specifically near the Serbian border -- is unclear. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 8 What is clear is that no one seems to know what to do with them; they are not -- regardless of the media's sensationalist headlines -- "prisoners of war," for there is simply no declared war. Are they prisoners of peace? Are they trespassers? Under whose legal jurisdiction do they fall? It was not lost on American troops that the Administration and NATO leaders were nonplussed by the capture. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 9 Of course, what is also not lost on our military is that this Administration does not really worry about things like military morale. After all, the Air Force is trying to wage this mission with a record low number of pilots, diminishing weapons and resorting to cannibalizing pilot-less aircraft for spare parts. The other branches are likewise seeing fewer recruits. And it is no wonder! Why would any young person choose military service -- or to stay in the military -- when it may require being captured by hostile forces, in the most untenable of situations, while performing missions that have no relation to our national security under the command of foreign leaders? !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 10 The Administration's track record on military engagement is disastrous, even if one accepts their interventionist philosophy. Not a single foreign entanglement of this Administration has achieved a single one of its goals. Yet far be it for this Administration to learn from past mistakes and put a more sensible foreign policy in place. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 11 With our troops spread so thinly and so poorly, one must wonder if this Administration is living in a fantasy world. For it is only in the world of fantasies where a hero can successfully face dozens of foes armed only with a butter knife. Yet the American people are not sure if we can even claim the title of hero in this situation, for rarely does a "hero" pick a fight. And one who picks a gun fight with a butter knife is more aptly described as foolish. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 12 To say the situation facing America is bleak would be optimistic. Dangerous would more correctly reflect reality. !CITE: 040599 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 13 We have been told that this region is a powder keg. Sadly, this Administration is poised with a lit match, inches from the barrel. Save a miracle, it is sure to explode in our faces. Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 !TITLE: Get to know your banker !DATE: 12 April 1999 !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 1 April 12, 1999 !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 2 Get to know your banker !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 3 Free-market economics can stop privacy invasion !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 4 When government regulators recently announced they were pulling the plug -- for now, at least -- on plans to strip away the financial privacy of all Americans, one can imagine they did so with a knowing smirk on their face. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 5 A smirk because they knew what most Americans do not: most big banks already have "Know Your Customer" programs in place. The regulations by that name, proposed last December, would require banks to keep records on the spending and savings habits of every client, with any deviation at all being reported to the IRS, FBI, DEA and other government agencies as being "suspicious." Those agencies, in turn, would be able to freeze accounts and seize assets -- essentially destroying a person's life -- without there ever being a court order or proof of criminal wrongdoing. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 6 The reality, though, is that many banks succumbed a long time ago and adopted these rules very quietly and "voluntarily." That is to say, they started doing these things before it was required because they assumed the agencies would get the regulations. Imagine the surprise when these banks (not to mention the regulators) found that a quarter-million people sent protests to the agencies, demanding the rules be pulled. I led a groundswell movement in Congress to stop them, and the "Know Your Customer" program was 'pulled from the shelf.' !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 7 Officially, anyway. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 8 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. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 9 The problem for both the big banks and the regulators, though, is the free market. Not every bank is participating in this privacy grab. But you can bet you won't see anyone advertise that they share every detail of your life with any federal agent who walks in the door. As a consumer, though, you do have a right to know what records your bank keeps on you, what is being done with them, and how they are being used. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 10 I would suggest that anyone concerned about financial privacy send a letter to their bank, asking those questions and requesting a response in writing. If the bank does have these programs which are not required, the customer should demand that such files not be kept. If the bank gets enough pressure from their customers, they will change their policies -- after all, what good is volunteering to assist the government in invading privacy if their customers leave in favor of other institutions that will not? !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 11 While it is impossible for a customer to know exactly what kind of financial records are now maintained about him, it is possible to find out what records the bank is making and what is being done with them. I have introduced legislation, HR 517, the FinCEN Public Accountability Act, which would give Americans access to their files. !CITE: 041299 Texas Straight Talk 12 April 1999 verse 12 Until then, Americans should use the free market to get to know their banker, and protect their own privacy. Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 !TITLE: Rein-in the President !DATE: 19 April 1999 !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 1 April 19, 1999 !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 2 Rein-in the President !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 3 Lack of congressional diligence has brought problems !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 4 If Congress had been diligent, this president would not have been able to launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation, putting the lives of our soldiers on the line while straining our relations with numerous foreign powers. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 5 Congress was not diligent these last several months, ignoring legislation I put forward at the beginning of this term to prevent any action in Kosovo. My legislation, HR 647, would prohibit the use of any Department of Defense funds from being used to bomb Yugoslavia without an Act of Congress authorizing such action. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 6 Congress has been less than diligent for much longer than three months. In fact, it's been decades. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 7 The US Constitution gives only Congress the authority to declare war. Presidents and their spin-doctors can talk all they want about "police actions" and "peace-keeping operations," but any one with common sense knows that when one country's government drops bombs on another sovereign nation, it is an act of war. Sadly, though, Congress has - over the last fifty years - ceded its war-making power to the executive branch. Today it is commonly, though erroneously, believed by a majority of Americans that presidents can send troops to war without even getting input from Congress. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 8 The reason for this is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This legislation gives presidents broad authority to commit troops and military resources for up to 60 days without congressional oversight. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 9 In keeping with this legislation, last week my colleague, Rep. Tom Campbell of California, introduced two pieces of legislation. The House must consider both measures, under law, within two months of introduction. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 10 The first measure is a declaration of war against Yugoslavia. While Mr. Campbell says he will vote against the measure, he wants to force our fellow Members of Congress to take a stand one way or the other - something no Congress has had to do with respect to war since December of 1941. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 11 I will vote against the war declaration. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 12 Mr. Campbell's second piece of legislation is in keeping with the War Powers Act. If passed, it would require the complete withdrawal of US troops from the conflict. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 13 This is a measure of which I am not only a (n original cosponsor), but will, of course, support. If Congress wants to show our troops we support them, then we need to get them out of this sickening mess before it is too late. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 14 Just as importantly, if members of this Congress wants to demonstrate to the American taxpayer they are responsible to our obligations under the Constitution, they will end this president's militaristic adventurism. It is time for presidents to understand that they are not above the law and that they are not kings who can arbitrarily decide to send troops to battle. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 15 Further, the taxpayers deserve to get more for their hard-earned dollars. The White House claims this unconstitutional action in Kosovo will carry a price tag of at least $4 billion, none of which was appropriated. So much for the president's desire to "save Social Security." This little war of the president's is being paid for by the Social Security funds. It is currently being said in Washington that an emergency supplemental appropriations bill with offset to pay for this war is "not politically viable." !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 16 In addition, while our troops are being ineffectively spread around the world, the borders of the United States are left largely unprotected. We deserve better. !CITE: 041999 Texas Straight Talk 19 April 1999 verse 17 It is ironic that a president who once wrote that he "loathed" the military, has engaged our nation in a situation that is potentially more dangerous than Vietnam. It is time Congress not only reins in this president, but the presidency itself. Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 !TITLE: 'Must-Carry' must be dropped !DATE: 26 April 1999 !CITE: 042699 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 1 April 26, 1999 !CITE: 042699 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 2 ‘Must-Carry’ must be dropped !CITE: 042699 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 3 Consumer choices limited by regulations, monopolies !CITE: 042699 Texas Straight Talk 26 April 1999 verse 4 It cannot be stated too often that we do not enjoy a free marketp