February 23rd, 2000
Victoria, Texas – Today, Congressman Ron Paul met with a group of Victoria area students to act as “government teacher for a day.” Paul addressed students from the Victoria Home School Association and discussed current legislation in Congress pertaining to education. He used the opportunity to contrast the Washington “insider” mentality toward education with his ideas of local control over schools and funding.
Paul said, “Each time we are given a new education proposal from Washington it involves another layer of bureaucracy, and that has proven harmful to education. If we truly want to reform the system, we need to let local school districts keep and distribute funds as they see fit.”
Instead of giving more money and power to federal bureaucrats, Congressman Paul has proposed an education reform package centering on giving control of education back to parents. Paul recently introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a per-year, per-child tax credit of up to $3,000 for education related expenses. It would allow parents the maximum amount of freedom in determining how to educate their children, and it would apply to all children, regardless of whether they are in public school, private school, or they are being home schooled.
Paul said, “The idea is to empower parents to take charge of their children’s education. When politicians in Washington 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.”
Paul also discussed a brand new piece of legislation he introduced last week called the “Agriculture Education Freedom Act.” The bill was written to address the undue taxation of students who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Currently, students are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock raised as part of an agriculture education program.
Said Paul, “These taxes discourage young people from participating in education programs, and they are another example of a growing federal government that punishes responsible students for preparing for the future. It is truly amazing that politicians in Washington would continue to tax students who are trying to do the right thing and further their education.”
“I will continue to write and promote legislation that takes control over education away from Washington and puts it into the hands of parents and educators here in Victoria,” Paul said. “It’s a simple idea, and most people agree, that parents know what’s best for their children, not a bureaucrat in the Department of Education.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 16th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to his colleagues asking them to join him in protecting the Social Security trust fund. Paul’s “Social Security Preservation Act” (HR 219) will ensure the integrity of the trust fund, and it will protect the retirement of America’s seniors by prohibiting the use of trust fund monies for anything other than paying pensions to beneficiaries.
Paul said, “The only way to guarantee a permanent ban on using the trust fund for purposes other than paying for our senior’s pensions is to enact the ‘Social Security Preservation Act.’ This bipartisan bill will go a long way to protecting our senior’s retirements from Washington politicians and bureaucrats who constantly raid the trust fund for their pork-barrel projects and other wasteful spending measures.”
The “Social Security Preservation Act” is a simple bill that states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries. Any excess funds will be invested in interest bearing certificates of deposit in order to help keep the trust fund from being used for other purposes. This will allow the fund to grow by providing for its investment in interest-bearing instruments.
Earlier this month, the independent, nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union reported that Paul was one of only seven members of the House of Representatives who voted not to spend one penny of the Social Security trust fund for other programs last year. Paul cited the study to emphasize the need for the “Social Security Preservation Act.”
Paul said, “When only seven members of Congress have the fortitude to keep their fingers off our senior’s retirement money, it’s quite clear that a mechanism must be put in place to protect the trust fund. My top priority this Congress is to restore the integrity of the Social Security system.”
“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,” Paul said. “This bill has already received extensive bipartisan support. I hope more members will join me in taking a stand for America’s seniors and protecting the Social Security trust fund.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 16th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the “Agriculture Education Freedom Act.” The bill was written to address the undue taxation of students who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Currently, students are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock raised as part of an agriculture education program.
“These kids are trying to better themselves, and what does Congress do?” Paul asked. “We pick on these students by taxing them. They are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! Whatever happened to no taxation without representation? It’s no wonder our young people have become so cynical of the government.”
Paul says these taxes discourage young people from participating in agricultural education programs, and they are another example of a growing federal government that punishes responsible students for preparing for the future.
Paul said, “It is truly amazing that with all the talk in this Congress over the need to increase the size of the federal government ‘for the children’ that we would continue to tax students who are trying to do the right thing and further their education.”
“It is time the federal government stop taxing our youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college through 4-H, FAA, and other agricultural education programs,” said Paul. “I call on every member of Congress to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 16th, 2000
<br />
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think of this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money, and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them.
It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in this Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government!
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 16th, 2000
<br />
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT<br />
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.
One of the most egregious portions of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities. Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe v. Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received.
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to review this new legislation and to join me in this battle by cosponsoring this pro-life legislation.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 15th, 2000
<br />
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O’Connor. Cardinal O’Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes even in the face of hostility.
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O’Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O’Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian.
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution–a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O’Connor, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O’Connor. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Cardinal O’Connor as they have consistently done in the past. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people’s money.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 11th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul has introduced the “Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000″ (HR 3636). The legislation will give seniors a tax credit for the cost of purchasing prescription drugs. It will also make it easier to import pharmaceuticals and protect from federal regulation those Internet pharmacies that are in compliance with all relevant state laws.
Paul said, “This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.”
“The Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans,” said Paul. “However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.”
“I am proud to introduce the ‘Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000′. It will make pharmaceuticals more affordable by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 10th, 2000
The President of the 685,000 members United Seniors Association (USA) has commended Representative Ron E. Paul for his voting record during 1999 on issues concerning senior citizens.
Representative Paul earned a 100% rating during 1999 on seniors issues. Seniors really appreciate his support. He voted right on the big issues of interest to seniors, USA President Sandra Butler said.
USA rated seven votes in the House of Representatives and ten votes in the Senate, including preserving Social Security surpluses, tax limitation, Social Security Lock Box legislation, tax cuts affecting seniors, the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public, and health care reform.
I believe it is important for members of Congress to receive feedback on their voting records. I’d like to publicly thank Representative Paul for his support throughout last year, Butler said.
She said that senior’s issues, particularly legislation to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund, will continue to be prominent in Congress throughout 2000.
It is vital that Social Security surpluses be saved, not spent. With the continued support of Representative Paul, I am hopeful that the Lock Box Bill will be enacted into law this year, Butler said.
United Seniors Association is the leading conservative seniors organization working to ensure the retirement security of all Americans.
For more information, visit us at www.unitedseniors.org
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 10th, 2000
<br />
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation.
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the Federal Government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits and limits senior citizens’ ability to earn additional income by reducing Social Security benefits if a senior exceeds the ‘earnings limitation.’ Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription drugs.
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
February 10th, 2000
<br />
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record and highly recommend to all of my colleagues Bill Evers’ ‘Secretary Riley Reignites the Math Wars,’ which recently appeared in the Weekly Standard. Mr. Evers’ provides an excellent overview of the controversy created by the Department of Education’s endorsement of ten ‘discovery-learning’ programs (also known as ‘new, new math’ or ‘fuzzy math’). Concerns have been raised that ‘fuzzy math’ de-emphasizes traditional mathematics in favor of encouraging children to ‘discover’ math without the guidance of a teacher. Under some ‘new, new math’ programs traditional teaching is discouraged on the grounds that teachers may harm a child’s self-esteem by, for example, correcting a child’s ‘discovery’ that 2+2 equals 5. Obviously, this type of ‘education’ diminishes a child’s future prospects, after all, few employers value high self-esteem more than the ability to add!
Mr. Evers’ article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ‘new math’ did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments.
The solution to America’s education crisis lies in returning to the Constitution and restoring parental control. In order to restore true parental control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). This bill would give parents a $3,000 per year tax credit for each child’s education related expenses. Unlike other so-called ‘reform’ proposals, my bill would allow parents considerably more 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.
The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets their child’s special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to read Mr. Evers’ article on the dangers of the federal endorsement of ‘fuzzy math’ and support my efforts to improve education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.
Williamson Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, an adjunct professor of political science at Santa Clara University, a research fellow at the Independent Institute and an adjunct fellow of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Mr. Evers has served on the California State Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards and he is currently a member of the California State Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment system’s Content Review Panels for history and mathematics as well as the Advisory Board of the Californian History-Social Science Project. Mr. Evers is the editor of What’s Gone Wrong in America’s Classrooms (Hoover Institution Press, 1998). Mr. Evers has been published in numerous scholarly and popular periodicals, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Christian Science Monitor.
(BY BILL EVERS)
In early 1998, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley called for a ‘cease-fire’ in the math wars between the proponents of solid content and the proponents of discovery-learning methods. He said he was ‘very troubled’ by ‘the increasing polarization and fighting’ about how and which mathematics should be taught from kindergarten through high school.
Despite this call for a cease-fire, the U.S. Department of Education endorsed ten discovery-learning programs in October 1999. This federal imprimatur should not be allowed to disguise the fact that content (such as dividing fractions and multiplying multidigit numbers) is missing from these federally approved programs and that there is no good evidence that they are effective. Discovery-learning math is often called by its critics ‘fuzzy math’ or ‘no-correct-answer math.’
In response to the Department of Education, about two hundred mathematicians and scientists signed an open letter to Secretary Riley, which was published in the Washington Post on November 18, 1999 (see letter at www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm.) The signers, who included Nobel laureates and some of the country’s most eminent mathematicians, didn’t like the Department of Education’s new equation: Federal Math=Fuzzy Math. The letter asked Riley to withdraw the federal endorsements. The news stories that followed got at the essence of the debate.
Steve Leinward of the Connecticut Department of Education was on the U.S. Department of Education’s panel that picked the math programs that would receive federal approval. In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Leinward defended the approved programs as the least common denominator–’a common core of math that all students can master.’
Leinward is not saying that the federally approved programs cover the material taught in too-performing countries such as Japan or Hungary or that the programs contain complete coverage of elementary and secondary school math. What he and his fellow panelists want is a watered-down program that all American students–as currently trained–can master.
Mathematics professor David Klein of California State University at Northridge is a proponent of solid content. He is quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying that algebra is the key course for students, the gateway to success in mathematics and to success in college in general. Leinward says that Klein’s algebra-for-all position is elitist.
Here we have the central difference between the two sides. The rigorous curriculum side says that, like Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, we can have algebra for all, preparing students for technical careers and college-level work. The water-it-down side says U.S. teachers and students aren’t capable of teaching and learning algebra.
These federal recommendations are for kindergarten through high school, which has serious consequences. In essence, the U.S. Department of Education, by making these endorsements, is closing the gate on going to college or even on technical blue-collar jobs for many students. And it is closing that gate as early as kindergarten.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: