November 19th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside) is this week unveiling an aggressive four-point plan to cut taxes and earning limitations on senior citizens. This “Seniors’ Agenda for 1998″ includes legislation the congressman has introduced which will repeal the 1993 tax increase levied on senior citizens by President Clinton.
The Paul package for seniors includes:
1. Total repeal of the “Earnings Limit” placed on seniors
2. Total repeal of the Clinton 1993 tax hike on senior citizens
3. Passage of the “Social Security Preservation Act”
4. Total repeal of the Capital Gains and Estate taxes.
“Passage of any of these four items would represent a real victory for senior citizens and all Americans, and I pledge to work vigorously on each of them throughout 1998,” said Paul.
The Social Security Preservation Act is legislation Paul has co-sponsored which will end the practice of the federal government “borrowing” from the Social Security Trust Fund.
“Each year the Washington politicians take the money Americans pay into social security and funnel the funds into pork-barrel projects. By stealing the money from the Social Security fund, the politicians are able to claim they are living within their means, when in reality they are stealing from our senior citizens.” Paul said the Social Security Trust Fund should be kept completely intact, without any borrowing for any purpose. “The federal government claims this is a retirement account. If a private company tries to borrow from the pension plan of its employees, they would face criminal charges of mismanagement. It’s time for the federal government to follow the law and not rob the Social Security system.”
During the past year, Paul voted against changing the Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment calculations. The proposed calculations would have cut benefits for senior citizens and military retirees, while increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Paul said he will continue to fight against this “accounting gimmickry used to hike taxes and cut benefits.”
Paul also successfully worked to cut the capital gains and estate taxes, but said those two taxes need to be completely repealed – a goal he will work to attain during the 1998 legislative calendar.
“Those taxes hurt middle-class senior citizens more than anyone else. Congress needs to repeal both during the upcoming session.”
Paul will also work to eliminate the “earnings limit” placed on senior citizens, and he has cosponsored to achieve that goal. The limit cuts off Social Security benefits to senior citizens who earn even pennies over the arbitrary line.
“Every senior citizen who has paid into Social Security deserve to get their money back, no matter how much they make. It is ridiculous that we limit people from providing for themselves, and then punish them by not letting them get back the money they paid into the system.”
In addition, Paul will be working for passage of his own bill, the Social Security Beneficiaries Tax Reduction Act . The measure will repeal the 1993 tax hike Clinton levied on the earnings of senior citizens.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 19th, 1997
WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter sent to President Clinton today, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside) urged the Commander-in-Chief to resist using force in Iraq, saying it will only worsen an already bad situation brought on by decades of interventionist US foreign policy.
“The real problem for the United States is not Saddam Hussein, but rather our foreign policy,” Paul wrote. “I hope your administration will mark a radical departure from others of this century, by following the advice of our Founding Fathers.”
In his letter, the Texas congressman said he was pleased the administration has in recent days embraced a diplomatic solution to the situation, noting that “the political pressures will be great” to escalate the situation and use military force. Paul described the use of the military in this situation as “unconstitutional and immoral.”
In addition to his letter, Paul sent the president an enclosure which further detailed his opposition to the use of military force in Iraq. Entitled “Bombing Saddam will only increase Arab distrust of West,” the position paper explains why US policy in the Middle East, and in relation to Iraq in specific, is doomed to fail.
Our policy dealing with Iraq, Paul writes, “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 this understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels.”
Paul notes that “more bombs were dropped on Iraq (during the Persian Gulf War) than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II.” And yet, he writes, “the instability remains and hatred toward America has increased… In this case, further bombing of Iraq would be a benefit to Hussein because his people rally around him.”
He also discusses the lack of constitutional authority for US involvement in this situation; authority which is critical if US lives are to be jeopardized by a military mission.
“There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world; we cannot afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire… It could easily be argued that our national security is jeopardized by antagonizing and encouraging a confrontation with the Iraqi government.”
Paul notes that the vile Iraqi leader is no worse than the leaders of nations which the US embraces as allies, friends and beneficiaries. The government of Turkey persecutes the Kurds in the same ruthless manner as Hussein, yet that country receives millions of dollars in aid from the US. Likewise, Saudia Arabia is notoriously hostile to the notion of civil liberties for women and religious minorities, yet that nation, too, gets the stamp of US approval. Recently, the US government began bailing-out the bankrupt – and tyrannical – regime in Indonesia, and political leaders in the US rolled out the red carpet for China’s leader, despite that nation’s well-known record for slaying dissidents and harming women and children.
“Human rights issues (regarding Iraq) are used to gain popular support through political propaganda,” Paul wrote, but is obviously not a real factor. Instead, Paul suggests the real factor is “who is controlling the oil.”
“Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect US national security.” Paul concludes by writing, “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.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. I tend to agree with the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor ] that much of what we have done so far on these various bills have not done a whole lot. We have talked about rectifying the conditions in China, changing human rights, dealing with forced labor, providing for religious freedom, and dealing with the abortion issue. I do not think much will come of those amendments. I felt that some of those were technically flawed. This amendment is different. This is a much better amendment. This amendment gets to the heart of the matter.
It is possible, due to a veto or some other technique, that this does not become law, but it should. If it became law, it would restrict our funding for the Chinese. This is what should be done.
I do not believe that the type of legislation that we have been passing can really change the nature of China. I believe that we have a responsibility here in the Congress to provide for the freest society possible and to set the best example for the record, and that is the best way to change the internal affairs of other
nations, and that we do not have this moral authority or constitutional authority to impose our will. But in the same light, we do not have the responsibility or authority, nor should we ever take hard-earned funds from the American taxpayers to subsidize regimes like Red China. So this is why I feel strongly about this issue, that we should stop this loaning through these international agencies.
When the foreign operations appropriation bill came to the floor, we discussed the issue of the Export-Import Bank. This does not deal with the Export-Import Bank, this deals with the $4 billion they get from the international agency.
I applaud the chairman for dealing with this. But I proposed an amendment that would deal with the direct subsidies of $4 billion more from the Export-Import Bank which goes to Red China. We were able to garner 40 votes to send a message and say that China should not be receiving these subsidies. So even with the best of light on legislation like this, it is moving in the right direction, it is doing the right thing, but still, the American people will be obliged to provide $4 billion worth of aid to Red China through the Export-Import Bank. I do not believe this is a proper function for government. I do not believe for a minute the American people want to do this. I believe it is endorsement of a system that we do not like.
At the same time, I do not believe these token bills that we have passed will do hardly anything to change the internal nature of what is occurring in Red China. But if we could send them a message and say we would not subsidize them, take the funds away, someday maybe we will reconsider taking away the funds from the Ex-Im, but we ought to pass this bill tonight.
(Italicized paragraphs were entered into record but not spoken because of time constraints.)
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 5th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has never earned high marks for consistency. We do spend many hours debating the minor differences in the management of many centralized programs that are generally unwarranted. But when it comes to foreign policy, I see both sides of the aisle are eagerly agreeing with the President that we must threaten force and use of force in Iraq.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication that this is a proper position. We have been told by the Ambassador to the United Nations that the reason we must threaten force in this area is that it is a direct threat to the security of the United Nations. Here all along I thought I was here in the Congress to protect the security of the United States.
We are inconsistent because the majority of Americans want us out of Bosnia. Most Members of Congress argue and vote to get us out of Bosnia. There is no indication that we are going to get out of Bosnia. Yet, here we are, chanting away that we should use force and threaten force in Bosnia. We do not have that same policy with China.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 5th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. Get rid of the Code, get rid of the IRS, and get rid of the income tax.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in tepid support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997. As most recently evidenced by Senate hearings, taxpayers across the country are clamoring for real reform. Yet, instead of delivering genuine reform, the Congress delivers an Oversight Board made up, in part, of experts from the fields of management, customer service, Federal tax laws, and information technology–in other words, more guards to oversee the watchdogs.
I can support this bill because it partially shifts the burden of proving guilt from the taxpayer to the Government. Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet that permeates any free society but has somehow been ignored with respect to the Internal Revenue Service’s imposition of criminal penalties. Additionally, this bill makes political audits by executive branch officials felonies punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
While these small steps are laudable, in light of the massive nature of the problem, the complexity of the Tax Code, and the oppressive nature of the excessive taxation under which we are currently so heavenly burdened, this bill is but token reform. The current taxation problem is rooted in the excessive spending by Government resulting from a bad case of congressional activism under which the legislative body has repeatedly overstepped it’s article I, section 8, constitutional powers.
No one likes to pay taxes–almost. The large majority of people in any society enjoy the benefits that come to them through Government programs, yet, essentially no one likes to have their taxes increased, believing they are always on the short end of receiving benefits in return. And this of course is true. The most people never get back what is taken from them in the form of taxes.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, however, was different. He claimed he likes to pay taxes saying: ‘I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.’ In a more famous quote, Holmes said: ‘Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.’ A more accurate statement might be that taxes, especially if collected with the tactics of the IRS, are what permits Governments to act in a most uncivilized manner.
Teddy Roosevelt, during the Progressive era, 1902, appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a time during which the ground work was laid for the modern welfare state later promoted by Teddy’s cousin FDR. And it was not too many years after the appointment of Oliver Wendell Holmes to the Supreme Court that these progressive ideas led to the establishment of the income tax, the IRS, and an equally threatening organization, the Federal Reserve.
Frank Chadorow had a much better understanding of what the income tax meant. ‘Income taxation is in principle the worst of all forms of taxation because it begins by asserting the prior right of the state to all wealth.’ This principle can be applied to almost all taxes. A tax on inheritance could be considered even worse since we accumulate property and capital often with after taxed money. Since all taxes are essentially a tax on productive effort, whether it be corporate tax or even a sales tax, this principle is certainly accurate when the revenues are used for redistributive purposes.
I see nothing wrong with the slogan ‘taxation is theft,’ when the revenues are used to transfer wealth or privilege from one group or person to another. In spite of all the talk in recent months regarding the method of taxation and the abuse by the IRS these basic principles are not being discussed. There has been too much emphasis placed on the taxing process rather than the philosophical principles that not only endorse but encourage an abusive tax system.
The recent Senate hearings on IRS procedures however were very beneficial in that they were reported by the major media and confirmed what most Americans suspected. Probably the most outrageous confirmation was that IRS agents did confess to a deliberate policy directed toward the weak and the poor to intimidate and make examples of them. Agents testified that the wealthy and the sophisticated were generally left alone because they were more capable of defending their rights. This is an outrage that should not be forgotten and should be used as a strong motivation to eventually do something about our tax system.
The fact the some citizens have even committed suicide over the pressure of facing the tax collectors is something that should not ever happen in the civilized society that Holmes claimed we were paying for. Thousands of Americans are quite willing to pay the penalties and excess tax without challenging the Government even when they know they are right because the emotional and financial penalty of fighting the IRS is too great.
For the last four decades it has become known to most Americans that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been willing to use the IRS, and for that matter other regulatory agencies, to punish their political enemies. It seems that the current administration has refined this technique to near perfection. It has been quite willing to attack, through the Tax Code, those foundations and groups that oppose Clinton’s policies while ignoring the friendly ones.
If we indeed lived in a truly civilized society individuals would be willing to come forth and reveal the Government’s atrocities against its own people instead of choosing to hide their identity. The fact that IRS agents are hidden behind screens makes one think that they believe they belong to an organization such as the Mafia and if discovered they themselves would become a victim. It reminds me of the horrible pictures that we see of our FBI, BATF, and DEA agents making questionable raids on private citizens with stocking caps over their heads. In a civilized and free society, Government agents would act as our servants and not convey an appearance of a criminal element. But, nearly two decades ago Milton Friedman asked ‘When you sit across the table from a representative of the IRS who is auditing your tax return, which one of you is the master and which the servant?’
In light of recent revelations the administration was quick to defend the IRS and explain the need for a strong collection agency. What else could we expect? However, even the administration senses that the public is on the verge of revolt and quickly added that certain reforms would be necessary. Reforms suggested by the administration included an advisory board, of course without clout, as well as making sure the IRS offices were kept open for longer periods of time including Saturdays. The advisory board would be used to advocate suspensions of seizure of property when appropriate. Sure. When an agency of Government is acting outside the law, i.e., the Constitution, while continuously making numerous errors, then expanding their hours seems to me to only compound our problem, not reduce them. Though I’m sure some Americans will see this as a positive for the administration, hardly will this do anything to help the problem.
Even the Republican proposal to have a private board with more clout doesn’t address the real problem. And another Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights won’t help either. If a private board is being appointed, what would keep the establishment from appointing friendly people to the board? I can’t see where this would be any different from the IRS being supervised by political hacks from the Treasury Department. This whole notion that better service can be given to the taxpayer is a bit preposterous. The fact that we call this the Internal Revenue Service is an obvious misnomer. How can an agency of Government that sets out to confiscate our wealth provide a service to us? It is just as preposterous to refer to victims as customers. Taxpayers are no more customers of an organization providing a service than the man in the moon. This type of wording is nothing more than the newspeak of which Orwell wrote. So far the reforms advocated by the administration and the Congress will do nothing to solve our long-term problems
Other more serious reforms have been suggested, such as eliminating the current Tax Code and replacing it with a flat tax or a national sales tax. Both of these proposals come up far short of dealing with the real problem. Supporters of both proposals never touch the problem of the Social Security, Medicare, flat tax of 17 percent which not only is here to stay but will surely rise. Since these programs are sacred no one can suggest that something should be done about them. But in reality, as I have mentioned before, the Social Security and Medicare tax is an income tax that is used for general revenues as the trust funds are nonexistent.
When one adds the tax that the employer and the employees pays, which is the real labor cost, each individual is paying 17 percent of their income up to $65,000, which is a truly regressive income tax. If a flat tax of 17 percent is added we are immediately at 34 percent and rising. With a flat tax this high and with removal of tax exemptions for everything, and especially our donations as well as our interest on our houses, we are actually setting the stage for a much higher tax rate which will make no one happy. Sure, there might be a little less difficulty figuring out the code, a cost in and of itself, but if one can save some money by having a complex code this could actually be better than a simple code where we are forced to divvy up more to the welfare state. Besides, the flat tax that is proposed has exemptions for low income so immediately it is a flat tax after a certain amount thus it is in reality a graduated tax. Businesses would still have to deduct the expense of doing business prior to reporting their profits.
A national sales tax has also been bantered around as an alternative to the income tax. Where it too has some advantages, reducing the effects of the complicated Tax Code and making filling out our tax returns easier, it also has many short-comings. First, nobody knows precisely what rate would be require to pay all the bills. Some have suggested 15 percent, others believe it will be over 30 percent, which I am inclined to believe. The reason it’s impossible to calculate is that at a certain level of taxation there will be a motivation to avoid the sales tax by expanding the underground economy.
The argument is made that the sale tax is a good way to collect revenue because those who are ducking taxes like the drug dealers and other criminals will be forced to pay the sales tax when they buy luxury items. There is nothing automatic about that assumption. Besides, IRS agents, who may be called something else, will be required to monitor every small business and every small profession to make sure that the revenues are collected and deposited in the Treasury. I can imagine that many small businesses and entrepreneurs working at home will have every bit as many records to fill out as they do now with their tax return. Obviously, reforming the tax collecting system to make productive Americans happy is much more difficult than meets the eye. Many Americans and Washington politicians are overly optimistic about changing the method of collection as the solution to the problems we face with our over exuberant revenuers.
Changing the collecting system, if the goal is to pay the bills and avoid a deficit, does nothing to solve the real problem of disenchantment with Government and the disgust with high taxes as well as with the prodding Federal bureaucrats who invade every aspect of our lives.
What is really upsetting most productive Americans is the fact that they have to work until July 3, before they get to keep any of their earnings for themselves. It’s ironic that July 4th is our first day of independence from all taxation. This does not even take into consideration the inflation tax, i.e., the loss of value of our purchasing power, as our Government continues to diminish the value of the dollar.
The inflation tax is something that is much more difficult to understand and yet is the tax of last resort of all authoritarian governments. We are now at the point where the American people are starting to rebel against any increase in taxation. In spite of the fact that we cannot pay our bills we were actually able, for political reasons, to make a token cut in some taxes last summer. This sill not prevent our Government, acting through the Federal Reserve, from creating new credit when necessary thus diminishing the value of the money already held. On this tax, however, because it’s difficult to see and the victims harder to find, the measurement is elusive. For this reason I am predicting that when push comes to shove with the budget it will be the ultimate tax used on the American people in an effort to continue to finance the welfare/warfare state. The real tragedy of this is that perceptions of the value of the dollar make it almost impossible to predict who the victims are going to be and when the value of the dollar will suddenly change. For instance it was quite clear when the recent devaluation hit the Mexican Peso it occurred suddenly and sharply and the victims were the middle-class and the poor throughout the country. But it was not gradual, steady and logical because the inflation tax frequently comes in sudden bursts.
The attention that token reforms are getting today, whether it be reforming the current system and devising a friendlier IRS or talking about a flat tax or a sales tax, actually is more of a distraction than a constructive debate. I am not saying this is intentionally done or of no value but I think that is the result of the current discussion.
The reason for this is that fundamentally and foremost it’s not a tax problem we face. The basic problem confronting us as a country is a spending problem. Concentrating only on taxes, which is okay to a degree, avoids the subject of the size of government and the reason why the Government spends so much of the Nation’s output. If we concentrate only on taxes and we avoid the subject of the role of Government and why the Government wants more of our money, we cannot and will not solve the problem. The goal ought to be to shrink the size of government and lower taxes. As bad as the income tax is on principle, an income tax of 3 percent on all money earned would not cause a tax revolt and most Americans would voluntarily pay their taxes. Even a national sales tax of 5 percent would not prompt a hue and cry over the tax system. The problem, of course, is that the Government is spending way too much money and there is no serious effort to cut back.
Recent budgetary efforts in Washington indicates that there’s not much chance that the current Congress is going to do anything about cutting back. The welfare state is alive and well. Even the National Endowment for the Arts could not be cut, Clinton’s health program is being implemented by the Republican Congress, public housing money is increasing, and just recently, in our Education Committee, a Republican proposal supported by Democrats to increase national educational expenditure for the purpose of promoting charter schools was easily passed, although it authorized a new $100 million program.
As long as this attitude prevails on the spending side, Saturday morning hours for the IRS and keeping telephone lines open 24 hours or having a review panel or instituting a sales tax or a flax tax will do nothing other than delay the serious discussion about reducing the role of government in our lives, in our economy and in the world at large.
Supply side economics pushed by many during the 1980′s argued strenuously for lower tax rates with which I agreed. But the goal of the supply siders was merely to stimulate the economy so that higher revenues would flow to Washington–a bad motivation. It is possible that with lower tax rate the economy would pick up but if the result was higher tax revenues, these revenues should be used to further cut taxes not increase expenditures. At the same time the supply siders were pushing the lower tax rates for the purpose of increasing revenues, they were advocating higher and higher budgets for the IRS to enhance the ability of the tax collectors. The Reagan administration was quite receptive to this principle believing that if a $1 billion in additional funds was given to the IRS it promised to produce $17 billion more in revenues through the process of harassment, intimidation and audit. Even this year the Treasury bill appropriation, which contained the pay raise for the Members of Congress, had an increase in the IRS budget of 9 percent giving them an increase of more than a half billion dollars to do exactly what they have been doing for decades. So, in the middle of the hearings on the Hill revealing the outrageous tactics of the IRS, and at the same time the politicians were propagandizing for tax reform, the large majority of Democrats and Republicans were voting for a huge increase in the IRS budget to continue the very process they were publicly condemning.
Today the atmosphere in Washington can be described as deceptively optimistic. Many of those who were preaching cutbacks and austerity a few years ago are claiming great victories with the accomplishment of a balanced budget. This budget is not balanced regardless of what the politicians are saying. Last year’s national debt went up nearly $200 billion when the funds taken from the trust funds are considered. Members are actually sitting around figuring out how to spend the excess they expect over the next several years. What they don’t understand is that their projections of our future spending habits, the tax revenues, interest rates, and the state of the economy are unknown to them and quite frankly are going to be a lot different than their optimistic projections.
All taxes are extracted from the productive effort of the people. Whether the tax comes through an income tax, a sales tax, an inheritance tax, a school tax, property tax, or whatever, this is the method whereby the state confiscates the productive effort from the people. Governments produce nothing. All governments can do is use force to redistribute wealth and pay off their political cronies. The name of the game is power. Power is achieved by the politicians through the control of people’s income through a taxing system as well as manipulating the value of money. As Chief Justice John Marshall said: ‘The power to tax is the power to destroy.’ It is not just a coincidence that those who introduced us to the welfare state, the Progressives of the early 20th century, believed both in the power to tax as well as the power to inflate.
In our relatively free society where productive efforts still exist and a profit motive remains, big government programs can be tolerated and funded for long periods of time. But as time goes on the productive ability of corporations and individuals is diminished as are all our freedoms for personal freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom. Today, we are living under conditions which encourage the export of capital and the exporting of jobs while encouraging the immigration of individuals who will do quite well living off our welfare state. In spite of the euphoria now being expressed in Washington, at the height of our so-called recovery, the conditions are set for soon recognizing that productive efforts are being impeded by our tax and regulatory system and there has been absolutely no serious intent to change our spending habits. The welfare/warfare state is moving briskly along and is being encouraged by the deceptive pronouncements that our budget is balanced and all we need to do is change the method by which we collect revenues.
We do not have a technical problem or an IRS code problem. We have a problem in defining the proper role for government. As long as the majority of the American people still believe it’s in their best interests to have a government that redistributes wealth and polices the world, this crisis will continue to build. A proper sized government would require minimal taxes and would be designed for the protection of liberty and equal justice for all. We have come a long way from those intentions of the Founders of this country, but we’ll soon face a crisis of confidence and be forced once again to decide for ourselves just what kind of government we want and how much government will tolerate. Let’s hope and pray that those of us who believe in limited government and maximum individual freedom will use the events of the coming years to promote the cause of liberty and not just tinker with the Tax Code. When that day comes the big tax debates will probably be; should we have a 5-percent import tax or a 10-percent import tax and we will not be dealing with a Federal income tax nor a Federal sales tax at all. Moreover, we will not be concerning ourselves with triffling reforms of a revenue agency which harasses our people and eats out our substance. Let us hasten that day.
(Italicized paragraphs were entered into record but not spoken because of time constraints.)
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 4th, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I was in support of the scholarship programs that we just voted down. But this bill introduces the notion of a brand new Federal program. I have not seen the problem to be lack of Government intervention at the Federal level, nor lack of funds.
I believe very sincerely that our public school system faces too much regulation from the Federal level, we do not need a new program. In this bill we will have mandates from the Federal Government on the States. There is also recommendations in here that the curriculum be evaluated. To me, this introduces a notion that we are so much opposed to testing, because it is the eventual evaluation and setting of standards that I think is so dangerous to the public school system.
This bill has $100 million in it. I can see why some who believe in big government believe in expanding the role of government in education, would support this. I strongly oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 2616, a bill amending titles VI and X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expand the use of charter schools. Despite the understandable enthusiasm many members of Congress feel toward charter schools, Congress should reject this bill as it represents an unconstitutional federal infringement upon the authority of states, local communities, and individual citizens to control education. The tenth amendment reserves to the states and the people ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,’ and thus forbids the federal government from any interference in education be it by mandating a national curriculum or providing incentives to states and localities to form charter schools. The drafters of the constitution made no exception for education in the tenth amendment.
H.R. 2616 encourages states to alter their education laws and policies for the purpose of increasing the number of charter schools to at least 3,000 by the year 2000. In order to achieve this congressionally set goal, the Secretary of Education is instructed to give prioritized funding to states which allow charter schools a ‘high degree of autonomy’ over their respective budgets and expenditures; have at least one chartering authority which allows for an increase in the number of charter schools each year; and provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school. Thus, the federal government will use monies seized from the American people to ‘persuade’ the states to create more charter schools with federal specifications. Of course, if the federal government reduced its oppressive level of taxation, the American people would have more resources to devote to education and states would feel less compelled to obey Congressional mandates in order to finance education.
A federal policy of encouraging charter schools represents an exercise in legislative hubris incompatible with ending ‘the era of big government.’ The charter school model may not be appropriate for every state in the nation. Whether or not a charter school is appropriate for a local community is a decision best made by the people in that respective community. Yet, this bill makes it national policy to encourage the formation of charter schools throughout the nation because Congress has determined charter schools are desirable. However, a centralized body such as Congress is institutionally incapable of knowing what reforms work best for every school district in this large and diverse nation. Therefore, rather than expanding federal programs,
Congress should defund the federal education bureaucracy and return control over education to those best suited to design effective education programs–local communities and individual citizens.
Proponents of this bill claim that it expands the educational options available to the nation’s children. However, increasing federal involvement in education actually decreases the ability of parents to control their child’s education. As a greater percentage of the nation’s educational resources are devoted to fulfilling the wishes of Congress, fewer resources will be devoted to fulfilling the wishes of America’s parents. This is because some people who would otherwise operate a religious-based school, for example, will instead open charter schools in order to receive federal funds. Since charter schools cannot offer religious instruction, those parents who would send their children to that school if it provided a parochial education are denied the ability to educate their children in accordance with their preferences.
Mr. Chairman, further evidence of how this bill would actually limit educational options can be found in the language making ‘evaluations’ of charter schools one of the stated purposes of the federal charter school program. National evaluation is a process whereby federal bureaucrats determine which are the best education practices, leading to a federally-approved set of ‘best practices’ for charter schools. Over time, charter schools will face pressure, perhaps applied by future Congresses, to adopt those practices favored by the federal government. Language in this bill giving the Secretary of Education the power to make grants based on how well charter schools meet the academic performance requirements guarantees an increasing level of uniformity among the nation’s charter schools. This may extend as far as federal control, or at least ‘oversight,’ of the curriculum offered by charter schools!
Defenders of this bill may point out that the statute specifies the review and evaluation of charter schools to determine how well the charter school meets or exceeds state performance standards. However, it is unlikely that any state seeking federal funds would set standards different from those favored by the federal educrats. Furthermore, states applying for federal funds for charter schools must describe to the Secretary the goals of charter schools and the means by which charter schools will be evaluated by the state, as well as the curriculum and instructional practices to be used by the states charter schools, thus giving the Secretary another means by which to impose a uniform federal model of charter schools.
This bill further centralizes education by ratifying the increase of federal expenditures for charter schools to one-hundred million dollars contained in this year’s budget and ‘such sums as necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.’ An authorization of ‘such sums as necessary’ gives appropriators carte blanche to increase appropriations every year. Since federal education programs are funded by taking money from hardworking American taxpayers, increasing federal expenditures on charter schools, or any other education program favored by Congress, leaves America’s parents with fewer resources to educate their children in the way they deem fit.
Mr. Chairman, if educational choice is to be the priority, Congress should support large educational tax credits for parents, such as those contained in the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816). Insofar as ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’ expanding federal education programs and federal education expenditures will inevitably lead to increased federal control. Conversely, education tax credits will restore parental control over education. Moreover, the tax credit approach is much more consistent with this Congress’ stated goal of decentralizing education authority.
In conclusion, this bill, while dressed up in the rhetoric of ‘fostering educational innovation and increased parental empowerment,’ is really yet another unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of states, localities, and, especially, parents to control education.
Charter schools may be a valuable educational reform. However, it is neither the constitutional nor practical role of Congress to encourage states to adopt a particular reform. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this proposal and instead, work to eliminate all federal educational programs which interfere with education and, instead, return authority over education to the rightful owner–the American people.
(Italicized paragraphs were entered into record but not spoken because of time constraints.)
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 4th, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I have been on the education committee now for 10 months, and I have not yet heard any Member stand up and brag about the public school system. Everybody seems to be critical of the system, and everybody has suggestions on what we can do.
I think the problem with the school system has definitely gotten worse since we have gained control of the public school system at the national level. There is pretty good evidence to this, and I think a new program and new expenditures up here will not do the trick. This program, however, does not fall into that category.
I believe that the States ought to have the right to set up one of these programs where scholarships can be offered. This is quite a bit different than mandating and dictating a brand new program and new appropriations. So I think this is a step in the right direction.
We should not be fearful of choice; we should not be fearful of competition. If we are serious about education, I think we should get beyond equating good education with the school lunch program. I cannot quite see the analogy of saying a good lunch is equivalent to good education.
But, more Federal programs will not solve the problem, and I believe very sincerely that if we allow some choice and if we allow some competition, we might see some improvement.
I do not believe this program is going to solve the problem of our educational system. We have serious structural problems. Some day we will have to look at the history of the public school system and look to the time when the public schools worked much better with local control and local financing.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents [HELP] Scholarships Amendments of 1997. The HELP Act allows States to use title VI funds for school voucher programs if the State has a voucher law. Nothing in this bill forces states to adapt a voucher program, states without voucher programs will not lose a penny of federal funds. HELP does not create a new federal program, nor does it provide a justification for an increase in federal education funds. Furthermore, this bill addresses the legitimate concerns that federally funded voucher programs will lead to state regulations of private schools by explicitly stating that receipt of these funds cannot be used as a reason for force religious schools to alter their curriculum, or force private schools to change their admission requirements. Additionally, participating private schools must only be in compliance with state regulations in effect one year prior to passage of the HELP Act.
Under 10th amendment to the Constitution, the question of whether or not to fund private-school voucher programs is a left solely to the state and localities. However, congressional activism has undermined state and local control of education as the federal education bureaucracy has grown increasingly powerful. Thus, many states now feel compelled to obey federal dictates and only engage in those education policies for which they can receive federal funds.
Individual states, localities and, in many cases, even private citizens cannot afford to support education programs without financial help from the federal government because of the oppressive tax burden imposed on the American people by this Congress! Congress then ‘returns’ the money (minus a hefty federal ‘administrative’ fee) to state governments and the American people to spend on federally approved purposes.
While the very existence of federal education programs and funding is an insult to the Constitution, and while the most effective education reform to entirely defund the federal education bureaucracy and return education funding to America’s parents through deep tax credits and tax cuts, the more options the federal government provides states, localities, and individuals in the use of federal education dollars the better. Mr. Speaker, authority for funding education belongs to the people and the states. We in Congress have no legal or moral justification for denying the people the right to pursue any education reform they believe will help America’s children–whether it is vouchers, charter schools, or statewide testing.
Mr. Speaker, my long-term goal remains the restoration of limited, constitutional government in all areas, including education. Until that goal is achieved, I will support measures, such as the one now before us, to give the states and the people as much control as possible over education dollars. After all, in the words of the pledge to abolish the IRS many of us signed last week, it is their money, not ours. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2746, the Helping Empower Low-Income Parents [HELP] Scholarships Amendments of 1997.
(Italicized paragraphs were entered into record but not spoken because of time constraints.)
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: