1998 Ron Paul 81:1 Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should
reject H.R. 3874, a bill reauthorizing the Women’s,
Infant, and Children’s (WIC) program and
other childhood nutrition programs, and the
flawed redistributionist, welfare state model
that lies behind this bill. Although the goals of
this legislation are noble, the means toward
achieving the goals embodied therein are unconstitutional
and ineffective.
1998 Ron Paul 81:2 Providing for the care of the poor is a moral
responsibility of every citizen, however, it is
not a proper function of the Federal Government
to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute
those funds to another group of citizens.
Nowhere in the United States Constitution
is the Federal Government authorized to
provide welfare services. If any government
must provide welfare services, it should be
State and local governments. However, the
most humane and efficient way to provide
charitable services are through private efforts.
Among their other virtues, private charities are
much more likely to provide short-term assistance
rather than fostering long-term dependency
upon government programs.
1998 Ron Paul 81:3 Mr. Speaker, I know that you, and many of
my colleagues, understand that private charities
are also much better able to target assistance
to the truly needy than government programs,
which are burdened with bureaucratic
rules of eligibility, as well as procedures designed
to protect the “due process” rights of
recipients, which cannot be adequately
changed to meet unique individual circumstances.
Thus, many people who are
genuinely needy do not receive needed help.
In fact, more than 40 percent of all families living
below the poverty level receive no government
assistance. Private charities can also be
more effective because they do not have to
fulfill administrative requirements, such as the
WIC program’s rebate system, which actually
divert resources from the needy.
1998 Ron Paul 81:4 Private charities are also able to place an
emphasis upon reformation of personal behavior
while not imposing the controls on personal
life that government programs, such as WIC,
impose on the program recipients. When a
pregnant woman signs up to receive WIC
vouchers, she is trading away a large amount
of her personal freedom. Her choices of where
to shop will be restricted to WIC-approved
vendors and her choice of what foods to buy
will be restricted to those foods which match
the WIC nutrition specifications. WIC recipients
are also required to participate in WIC
parenting and nutrition classes.
1998 Ron Paul 81:5 As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance
of proper nutrition for pregnant
women and young children. However, as a
constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the
federal government coercing pregnant women
into accepting such services and restricting
their choices of food products. The founders of
this country would be flabbergasted if they
knew that the federal government had monopolized
the provisions of charitable services to
low-income women, but they would be horrified
if they knew the federal government was
forbidding poor women from purchasing Post
Raisin Bran for their children because some
federal bureaucrats had determined that it
contains too much sugar!
1998 Ron Paul 81:6 Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture
of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their
products included in this program reveals the
extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare.
Many corporations have made a tidy
profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding
their competitors in the process. For
example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal
government is the largest purchaser of infant
formula in the nation.
1998 Ron Paul 81:7 According to the Congressional Research
Service, food vendors participating in WIC received
9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75%
of the total funds spent on the WIC program!
This fiscal year, producers of food products
approved by the federal government for purchase
by WIC participants are expected to receive
$10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars!
Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my
office to discuss WIC were not advocates for
the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons
for corporate interests!
1998 Ron Paul 81:8 Any of my colleagues who doubt that these
programs serve the interests of large corporations
should consider that one of the most
contentious issues debated at Committee
mark-up was opposition to an attempt to allow
USDA to purchase non-quote peanuts (currently
the only peanuts available for sale are
farmers who have a USDA quota all other
farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the
US) for school nutrition programs. Although
this program would have saved the American
taxpayers $5 million this year, the amendment
was rejected at the behest of supporters of the
peanut lobby. A member of my staff, who appropriately
asked why this amendment could
not pass with overwhelming support, was informed
by a staffer for another member, who
enthusiastically supports the welfare state, that
the true purpose of this program is to benefit
producers of food products, not feed children.
1998 Ron Paul 81:9 The main reason supporters of a free and
moral society must oppose this bill is because
federal welfare programs crowd out the more
efficient private charities for two reasons. First,
the taxes imposed on the American people in
order to finance these programs leave taxpayers
with fewer resources to devote to private
charity. Secondly, the welfare state
erodes the ethic of charitable responsibility as
citizens view aiding the poor as the government’s
role, rather than a moral obligation of
the individual.
1998 Ron Paul 81:10 The best way to help the poor is to dramatically
cut taxes thus allowing individuals to devote
more of their own resources to those
charitable causes which better address genuine
need. I am a cosponsor of HR 1338, which
raises the charitable deduction and I believe
Congress should make awakening the charitable
impulses of the American people by reducing
their tax burden one of its top priorities.
In fact, Congress should seriously consider
enacting a dollar-per-dollar tax credit for donations
to the needy. This would do more to truly
help the disadvantaged than a tenfold increase
in spending on the programs in HR
3874.
1998 Ron Paul 81:11 In conclusion, Congress should reject HR
3874 because the programs contained therein
lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal
government to control the lives of program recipients,
and serve as a means of transferring
monies from the taxpayers to big corporations.
Instead of funding programs, Congress should
return responsibility for helping those in need
to those best able to effectively provide assistance;
the American people acting voluntarily.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul 81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens.
probably should have a semicolon:
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen; however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens.
1998 Ron Paul 81:6
the manufacture of foods probably should be the manufacturers of foods.
1998 Ron Paul 81:7
well-healed probably should be well-heeled.
1998 Ron Paul 81:8
non-quote peanuts probably should be non-quota peanuts.
1998 Ron Paul 81:8
(currently the only peanuts available for sale are farmers who have a USDA quota all other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US)
probably should be (Currently the only peanuts available for sale are from farmers who have a USDA quota. All other farmers are forbidden to sell peanuts in the US.)
