2001 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
chairman for yielding me this time. I
too want to express my deep sympathy
and sorrow for those people in India
who are suffering. It was truly a devastating
natural disaster and certainly
the concern of all Americans goes out
to all these people.
2001 Ron Paul 5:2
I do have some concerns about how
we respond so often to disasters like
this because we believe that we can
solve all our problems by just going to
the taxpayers. I know that this does
not seem like the appropriate time to
raise the question, but there was a
time in our history when we did not assume
that it was a constitutional approach
to tax poor people in America
to help people in other parts of the
world. We have always resorted to
charities and volunteer approaches,
and I still believe that is proper. I do
not think there is evidence to show
that aid to governments is necessarily
the most efficient manner of helping
other people.
2001 Ron Paul 5:3
There is also the moral question. We
talk about what we are giving today,
and it is substantial amounts, and we
are substantially increasing it. It could
be $10 million. It could be $100 million.
But nobody talks about could it cost
something. Well, there is a cost to it
and it might hurt some innocent people
in this country; the people who we do
not know about. Somebody might not
be able to build a house or get medical
care. There may be somebody who will
lose a job. There may be an increase in
inflation. But we will never see those
victims, so they are not represented. I
think that if we were more determined
to follow the rule of law and do this
only in a voluntary manner we would
not always place a burden on some innocent
people in this country.
2001 Ron Paul 5:4
It was ironic that today, although
there was talk earlier about sending
some goods and surpluses, that actually
the ambassador today sadly said
he was not interested in any surpluses;
he just wanted the dollars to come over
there. And there may be a good reason
for this, for efficiency sake or whatever.
But in a way, I think if we have
some surplus in food or something, we
should be able to provide that.
2001 Ron Paul 5:5
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity
to express my sympathy for victims of the recent
earthquake in the State of Gujarat, India
and, at the same time, my concern for American
taxpayers who, once again, will see their
constitution ignored and their pockets raided
by their representatives in Washington — it is,
of course, easy to express sympathy with
other people’s money.
2001 Ron Paul 5:6
Without so much as a hearing in the International
Relations committee, this bill comes
to the floor and, while laudably expressing
deep sympathy for victims of this terrible natural
disaster in India, regrettably expresses
support for (a) the World Bank; (b) “substantially”
increasing the amount of U.S. taxpayer-funded,
disaster assistance; and (c) future
economic assistance to rebuild the state of
Gujarat, India.
2001 Ron Paul 5:7
Setting aside for the moment that nowhere
in Article I, Sec. 8 (the enumerated powers
clause) of the Federal Constitution can authority
be found to take money from U.S. taxpayers
for this purpose, additional problems
result from passage of this resolution as well
as those actions certain to follow as a consequence
of the bill’s passage.
2001 Ron Paul 5:8
First, the notion of taxing the fruits of financially
struggling Americans with no constitutional
authority only to send it to foreign governments
is reprehensible. One of the problems
with such aid is that it ultimately ends up
in the hands of foreign bureaucrats who merely
use it to advance their own foreign government
agendas thus making it less likely to get
to those most deserving. One need only compare
the success of private charities in this
country with those government relief efforts to
clearly see government’s profound and inherently
inept record.
2001 Ron Paul 5:9
Secondly, forced “contributions” erode any
satisfaction that comes from being a charitable
individual. Without the personal choice of giving
or not giving to charitable relief efforts, the
decision to be charitable and the moral reward
of so doing is completely eroded by the force-
based
government.
2001 Ron Paul 5:10
Lastly, as a result of such actions as these,
participation dwindles worldwide for the most
efficient means of dealing with such catastrophes,
that is, private disaster insurance.
When disaster costs are socialized, greater
catastrophic results are encouraged as more
people ignore the costs of living in riskier
areas. At the same time, these same actors
ignore the cost savings and other benefits of
living in safer areas. Governments acting to
socialize these costs actually stimulates the
eventual death and destruction of more people
and their property. (This, of course, is a lesson
that the United States should learn to apply
domestically, as well.)
2001 Ron Paul 5:11
While I truly do extend my heartfelt sympathy
to those victims of the recent natural
disaster in India, my duty remains to protect
the U.S. taxpayer and uphold the constitutional
limits of our Federal Government. For
this reason and each of those detailed above,
I must oppose this resolution.
Notes:
2001 Ron Paul 5:4
for efficiency sake probably should be possessive: for efficiency’s sake.
2001 Ron Paul 5:6
International Relations committee probably should be capitalized: International Relations Committee.
2001 Ron Paul 5:7
enumerated powers clause probably should be capitalized: Enumerated Powers Clause.
2001 Ron Paul 5:10
stimulates probably should be stimulate, since the subject, Governments is plural.
