January 28th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Americans from all walks of life have been expressing their agreement with Congressman Ron Paul that protecting the Social Security trust fund should be the top priority for Congress and the President this year. Paul said he was disappointed that President Clinton did not commit to true Social Security reform by embracing his Social Security Preservation Act. Paul made the remarks after seeing the President’s State of the Union address.
“I believe, and most Americans agree, that no funds should be spent out of the Social Security trust fund for any purpose other than paying pensions to beneficiaries,” said Paul.
Paul’s top priority in this Congress is protecting Social Security trust funds. That is why the first bill he introduced this term was HR 219, the Social Security Preservation Act. The bill will end the practice of the federal government “borrowing” from the trust funds.
Paul said, “It is disappointing that President Clinton, who says he wants to protect Social Security recipients, has just given his last State of the Union address and never mentioned any support for HR 219. After seven years with Mr. Clinton as our President, we still have no laws in place to protect public retirement funds from being raided.”
“Each year the President and Congress take the money Americans pay into Social Security and funnel the funds into pork-barrel projects and spending directed by Washington bureaucrats,” said Paul. “By stealing money from the Social Security fund, politicians are able to claim they are living within their means, when in reality they are stealing from our senior citizens.”
In recent years, President Clinton and Congress have claimed to produce a balanced budget. This balancing act has only come as a result of taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Paul said the trust fund should be kept completely intact, without any borrowing for any purpose.
“The federal government says this is a retirement account,” said Paul. “If a private company tries to borrow from the pension plan of its employees, it would face criminal charges of mismanagement. It’s time for the federal government to follow the law and not rob the Social Security system.”
Every month, Americans see a portion of their paycheck reduced by taxes taken specifically for the Social Security trust fund. The understanding is that the taxes are held in trust for that person’s retirement. However, the trust fund has little actual money in it. Instead, it holds IOUs from the federal government. Paul believes that it must be a top priority for this Congress to restore the integrity of the Social Security trust system.
Paul said, “The Social Security Preservation Act will restore America’s faith in their retirement by making it illegal for the government to use the trust funds for any purpose except administering the Social Security system. Right now, billions of dollars are being diverted from their intended purposes, because of greedy Washington politicians and their pork-barrel projects. Unfortunately, it appears the President isn’t truly concerned with protecting the Social Security Trust Fund. If he were, then he would have announced his support of the Social Security Preservation Act.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
January 28th, 2000
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the possibility that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will attempt to exercise regulatory authority over home-based worksites and hold employers responsible for accidents occurring in such worksites. Although OSHA has announced that it will only hold employers liable for conditions at home-based worksites if the employee is performing “hazardous manufacturing work,” this proposal still raises serious concerns. This is because any expansion of OSHAs regulatory authority in the homes represents a major expansion of federal authority far beyond anything intended by Congress when it created OSHA in the 1970s. Furthermore, OSHA regulation of any type of work in the private residence opens the door to the eventual regulation of all home worksites. In order to ensure home-based workers are protected from overzealous federal bureaucrats, Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and myself have introduced legislation, the Home Office Protection Enhancement (HOPE) Act, amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act to clarify that OSHA has no authority over worksites located in an employee’s residence.
Modern technology, such as e-mail and the Internet, allows employees to be productive members of the workforce without leaving their homes! The option of “telecommuting” is particularly valuable for women with young children or those caring for elderly parents. Using technology to work at home gives these Americans the chance to earn a living and have a fulfilling career while remaining at home with their children or elderly parents. Telecommuting also makes it easier for citizens with disabilities to become productive members of the job market. Any federal requirements holding employers liable for the conditions of a home office may well cause some employers to forbid their employees from telecommuting, thus shutting millions of mothers, persons caring for elderly parents, and disabled citizens out of the workforce!
Federal polices discouraging telecommuting will harm the environment by forcing American workers out of their home and onto America’s already overcrowded roads. It is ironic that an administration, which has claimed that “protecting the environment” is one of its top priorities, would even consider policies that could undermine a market-created means of protecting the environment. Employers who continue to allow their employees to telecommute will be forced by any OSHA regulations on home offices to inspect their employees’ homes to ensure they are in compliance with any and all applicable OSHA regulations. This is a massive invasion of employees’ privacy. What employee would want their boss snooping around their living room, den, or bedroom to make sure their “home-based worksite” was OSHA compliant?
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda.
Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!
Some may argue that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHAs invasiveness promotes workplace safety! While it is true that workplace accidents have declined since OSHAs creation, OSHA itself has had little effect on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before OSHAs creation, thanks to improvements in safety technology and changes in the occupational distribution of labor. Workplace fatalities declined from 30 deaths per 100,000 in 1945 to 18 deaths per 100,000 in 1969, three years before OSHAs creation. In contrast to the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHAs creation, workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the 21 years after OSHAs creation.
OSHAs role in this decline was negligible! According to Richard Butler of the University of Minnesota, who studied National Safety Council data on workplace facility rates, OSHAs contribution to workplace fatality rates is “statistically insignificant.” This is not an isolated example; the vast majority of workplace studies show an insignificant role for OSHA in reducing workplace injuries.
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old “command-and control” model with one that respects the constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.
In conclusion, I wish to once again thank Mr. Hoesktra for holding this hearing on this important issue and urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hayworth and myself to protect those who work at home from further over-regulation by cosponsoring the Home Office Protection Enhancement Act (HOPE) Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
January 20th, 2000
Rockport, TX – On Wednesday afternoon, Congressman Ron Paul spent time with a group of children and their parents who participate in home school programs in Rockport. Paul used this time to praise the parents for taking responsibility for their children’s education, and he emphasized the need for programs that give working families more educational options.
“It’s wonderful to see these parents taking such an active role in their children’s education,” Paul said. “They are not satisfied with the education establishment’s latest curriculum fad, and they’ve decided to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, due to the immense tax burden, many others do not have the financial flexibility to take on such a task as home schooling.”
Last year, Paul introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935) which is designed to give all parents the option of educating their children in any manner they see fit. The bill will give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child’s education related expenses.
Paul said, “I am working to give control of the education dollar back to parents through my Family Education Freedom Act. Unlike many education proposals that come from Washington, my bill would allow parents the maximum amount of freedom in determining how to educate their children. It would also be free of guidelines and restrictions that only dilute the actual number of dollars spent directly on a child.”
Paul also stressed that the Family Education Freedom Act would especially benefit parents of handicapped or disabled children, because it gives them the freedom to use more of their own resources to meet their child’s unique educational needs.
A longtime supporter of home schoolers, Paul said he believes the key to returning to a quality education lies in the hands of parents, teachers, and locally elected school boards.
“An answer to our education problems can be home schooling, but it’s not necessarily restricted only to home schooling” Paul said. “It’s the idea of empowering parents and teachers to take charge of their children’s education. When politicians in Washington or Austin start mandating curriculum and education policies, they are taking control away from parents, teachers and locally elected school boards, and putting it in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
January 14th, 2000
Washington, DC — US Representative Ron Paul this week announced his nominees for the US Service Academies. The student’s hometowns span the length of the large and geographically diverse 14th District of Texas. District 14 covers an area including the Texas Gulf Coast, the Coastal Plains and the Texas Hill Country.
Each year, Members of Congress nominate students from their district to the US Military Academy at West Point, NY., the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., the US Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, Co., and the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY.
“Being chosen to attend one of the service academies is both a high honor and a serious responsibility,” Paul stated. “The men and women that are appointed receive one of the best educations available. In exchange, they agree to serve their nation in the armed services. Our military needs the strong leadership provided by well educated individuals to be able to defend the liberty that was so hard won and could be so easily lost.”
The students were selected through a rigorous application process that included interviews with Rep. Paul’s Academy Nomination Committee. The committee is made up of community minded individuals representing all parts of the 14th district and include Committee Chairman Don Loucks (USAF, Ret.) of Bastrop, Gen. Edwin Wenglar (USAF, Ret.) of Francitas, Col. Jim Peck (USAF, Ret.) of Lago Vista, Mr. Jim Deats of Blanco, West Point Graduate Dr. Ray Jess of Brazoria County, Mrs. Denise Collier (Asst. Superintendent, Bastrop ISD), Major Simon Benavides of the US Air Force Academy, and Congressman Paul’s military and veterans affairs legislative aide Scott Green.
“Even though the interview process was not easy, the nominees had already completed the most difficult aspect of receiving a nomination prior to their appearance before my nomination committee,” commented Paul. “Their many years of hard work in school, on the sports field and developing their leadership skills were the real test of their abilities. These students represent the best and brightest the 14th District of Texas and the United States have to offer. We would do well to have each one of these fine young men and women serving in our military and leading our nation.”
Rep. Paul has nominated one principal nominee to each of the three military service academies.
For the US Military Academy at West Point, Rep. Paul selected Stoney Portis of Lockhart as his principal nominee. For the principal nomination to the US Naval Academy, Rep. Paul selected Michael James Stoner of Buda . Dan Eric Crow of Lexington received Rep. Paul’s principal nomination to the US Air Force Academy.
While nominated, each candidate must still face further examination by the academies before they are offered an appointment to this year’s class of freshmen cadets and midshipmen.
“I wish each one of these young people well in their endeavors and know they will serve our state and nation well, regardless of whether or not they attend an academy or serve in the military. The people of the 14th District should be proud of each of these young men and women.”
Rep. Paul’s Academy Nominees:
US Military Academy (Army)
Stoney Portis
Lockhart
Principal Nominee
Adam Charles Cmerek
Taylor
Competitive Nomination
Geoffrey Michael Comley
Woodbridge, VA
Competitive Nomination
Richard Alan Cook
Kyle
Competitive Nomination
Justin R Muery
Rockport
Competitive Nomination
Scott Alan Merry
Buda
Competitive Nomination
Paul Wenceslaus Pena
San Marcos
Competitive Nomination
Mark Allen Reid
West Columbia
Competitive Nomination
John David Roaten
Rock Port
Competitive Nomination
Jacob Henry Shalley
Van Vleck
Competitive Nomination
US Naval Academy
(Navy and Marines)
Michael James Stoner
Buda
Principal Nominee
Richard Alan Cook
Kyle
Competitive Nomination
Benjamin Joseph Dullnig
Buda
Competitive Nomination
Daniel James Flake
Dripping Springs
Competitive Nomination
Stephen Mahoney Ford
Victoria
Competitive Nomination
Daniel James Grumman
Victoria
Competitive Nomination
Alan William Kruppa
LaGrange
Competitive Nomination
Grant Wesley Miller
Victoria
Competitive Nomination
Paul Wenceslause Pena
San Marcos
Competitive Nomination
Roxane Wilma Quinones
Cedar Creek
Competitive Nomination
US Air Force Academy
Dan Eric Crow
Lexington
Principal Nominee
Geoffrey Michael Comley
Woodbridge, VA
Competitive Nomination
Benjamin Joseph Dullnig
Buda
Competitive Nomination
Daniel Jame Flake
Dripping Springs
Competitive Nomination
Justin R Muery
Rockport
Competitive Nomination
Erica S Lankford
Luling
Competitive Nomination
Cecilia Concepcion Ramirez
Bay City
Competitive Nomination
John David Roaten
Rockport
Competitive Nomination
James Christopher Sprys
Bay City
Competitive Nomination
Jonathan Armstrong Thomas
Columbus
Competitive Nomination
US Merchant Marine
Geoffrey Michael Comley
Woodbridge, Va
Nomination
Richard Alan Cook
Kyle
Nomination
Dan Eric Crow
Lexington
Nomination
Benjamin Joseph Dullnig
Buda
Nomination
Alan William Kruppa
LaGrange
Nomination
Erica S Lankford
Luling
Nomination
Paul Wenceslaus Pena
San Marcos
Nomination
Stoney Portis
Lockhart
Nomination
Michael James Stoner
Buda
Nomination
Jonathan Armstrong Thomas
Columbus
Nomination
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
January 13th, 2000
Victoria, Texas – Congressman Ron Paul announced today that the City of Victoria is the recipient of a FEMA grant, totaling $1,251,237, to be administered by the Texas Division of Emergency Management. Application for the grant was made by the city following the October 1998 flood. The funds are to be used to pay 75 percent of the purchase cost for 108 flood-damaged structures, with the city paying the remaining $417,079.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: