October 26th, 2000
Washington D.C.- Legislation introduced by Congressman Ron Paul to restore ownership of the Lake Texana/Palmetto Bend project to the State of Texas was approved by Congress late Tuesday evening, when legislators from both parties joined Paul in supporting the Palmetto Bend Conveyance Act. The Act authorizes the State of Texas, acting through the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority (LNRA), to purchase the federal interest in Lake Texana. The bill was designed to restore local control over the Lake Texana water supply and increase local availability of water in Jackson and Calhoun counties.
Successful passage of the legislation follows months of ongoing efforts by Congressman Paul, who worked tirelessly with members of the House Resources committee to finalize the bill before Congress adjourned for the year.
“I’m very pleased with yesterday’s vote, which comes after months of work at the committee level in the House of Representatives,” Paul stated. “By taking the federal government out of the equation, this bill gives Texans more say over their own water issues. The federal government has proven itself a very poor manager of local water resources, while the LNRA has demonstrated it can manage the project in a cost-efficient manner. This legislation will result in less regulation and important cost reductions for the people of Jackson county and all areas supplied by Lake Texana.”
The bill allows the LNRA to assume full ownership of the project, reducing operation costs by eliminating dual management with federal authorities. Mitzi Mauritz, President of the Authority’s Board of Directors, stated that Congressman Paul has worked closely with the LNRA during this Congress and has been instrumental in keeping our issue before the House. “Without his efforts, we could not have achieved passage of this legislation which we believe is so vital to the future development of the water resources of our region. We are extremely fortunate to have a dedicated lawmaker in Washington protecting the local interest.”
The federal Bureau of Reclamation recently completed its final environmental assessment concerning the title transfer of the Palmetto Bend project to the LNRA, identifying no adverse environmental impact.
“Local control of resources is critical,” Paul concluded. “People know that management by federal regulators does not work. Local control will result in better conservation of resources and the elimination of policies which have encouraged the inefficient use of water. I will continue my efforts to restore federally controlled land to the people of the State of Texas.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 26th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2614 contains some very laudable tax cut measures which I strongly support. However, the bill also contains some very troubling provisions, provisions which have no place in what ought to be purely tax relief legislation. As a result, this bill represents an eleventh-hour political compromise which makes politicians feel good but does more harm than good for the American people.
Many Members, including myself, have worked hard to bring some measure of tax relief to American families this year. We worked to pass meaningful bills which would have eliminated the marriage penalty and eliminated the harmful estate tax. We worked to increase deductions for health care expenses. We worked to increase the tax-deductible amounts individuals can contribute to their IRA and pension plans. We worked for these tax cuts because we know that American families pay too much in taxes. Tax relief has been, and should be, our guiding principle.
Accordingly, I strongly endorse many of the provisions in this bill. I fully support the increased IRA and pension plan deduction amounts, which will benefit virtually all Americans. Tax-deductible and tax-deferred savings incentives represent the very best kind of tax reforms this Congress can make. Not only do Americans pay less in taxes with an increased deduction, they also have an increased incentive to accumulate retirement savings.
Another worthwhile portion of this bill addresses the needs of rural hospitals, which were unfairly singled out for excessive reductions in Medicare reimbursements by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While Congress deserves a share of the blame, most of the problems experienced by rural health care providers are the result of flawed implementation of the Act by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). This administration has decimated rural health care in order to artificially prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, while avoiding reforms that would give seniors more control over their health care decisions. The administration should not play political games with Medicare trust funds at the expense of rural hospitals. By doing so, it has violated the promise of quality health care made to senior taxpayers in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased that this bill extends the Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program created in 1996. MSAs and generous health care tax deductions are critical to preserving health care freedom. Federal policies removing consumer control over health care dollars inevitably have led to increased decision making by HMOs and federal bureaucrats.
We must restore individual control over health care dollars, and MSAs coupled with health care tax credits and deductions are an important step in the right direction. MSAs and health care tax deductions lower health care costs without sacrificing quality by motivating patients to negotiate for the highest quality care at a reasonable price.
Similarly, today’s small business tax relief measures are commendable. We place a huge regulatory and tax burden on our nation’s small employers, many of which find it difficult simply to comply with the tax laws. I support any efforts to reduce taxes and regulations on our small entrepreneurial employers.
Unfortunately, these positive tax relief provisions are outweighed by other measures in today’s mixed bag legislation, measures which have been agreed to only because many Members want to claim they have passed a ‘tax relief’ bill before they go home. The administration has thwarted many of our tax relief efforts through the veto process, and we apparently have decided to take whatever tax measures we can get, regardless of the price. So now we find ourselves in a position where we cobble together some less sweeping tax relief proposals which the administration will accept, and we put them in a larger bill which contains some very bad measures favored by the administration. Before we tout today’s bill, however, we ought to be honest with our constituents about the real nature of this last-minute compromise.
The small business tax relief in this bill is more than outweighed by the provisions raising the federally-mandated minimum wage. While I certainly understand the motivation to help lower wage workers, the reality is that a minimum wage hike hurts lower income Americans the most. When an employer cannot afford to pay a higher wage, the employer has no choice but to hire less workers. As a result, young people with fewer skills and less experience find it harder to obtain an entry-level job. Raising the minimum wage actually reduces opportunities and living standards for the very people the administration claims will benefit from this legislation! It’s time to stop fooling ourselves about the basic laws of economics, and realize that Congress cannot legislate a higher standard of living. Congress should not allow itself to believe that the package of small business tax cuts will fully compensate businesses and their employees for the damage inflicted by a minimum wage hike. Congress is not omnipotent; we cannot pretend to strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and wage mandates so that no American businesses or workers are harmed. It may make my colleagues feel good to raise the minimum wage, but the real life consequences of this bill will be felt by those who can least afford diminished job opportunities.
We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it. We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our exempting a small portion of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ‘subsidy.’ We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy–no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its foreign income. Most EU countries don’t tax their corporations on foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a subsidy is ridiculous.
This measure clearly demonstrates how our membership in the WTO undermines our national sovereignty. I have warned this body that the WTO does not promote true free trade, but rather enforces politically influenced ‘managed trade.’ I warned this body that our agreement to abide by WTO rulings would force us to change our domestic laws. I warned this body that our participation in the WTO was unconstitutional. Yet Members scoffed at this idea. Members of the Ways and Means committee said it was ‘unthinkable’ that the U.S. Congress would change our nation’s laws because of an order by the WTO. We were told that we had to join or else we would lose the international ‘trade wars.’ Today we see our sovereignty clearly undermined, and at the same time we stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war by the EU. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
We should not change our tax laws at the behest of any body other than the U.S. Congress. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing foreign source income. Today’s FSC measure will not appease the EU; they already have indicated that the House version of this bill is unsatisfactory to them. Worst of all, this measure gives the President further unconstitutional executive order powers to make changes when demanded by the WTO in the future. Never mind that the legislative power is supposed to reside solely with Congress. We simply cede our legislative authority to the WTO when we pass this measure, and it’s shameful that it likely will go unnoticed by the American people. We ought to tell them exactly what we are doing to national sovereignty when we pass this last-minute mixed bag of tax measures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the leadership for bringing this conference report to the floor. This conference report includes many important provisions to spur individual retirement savings.
Most importantly, the report includes language that increases the IRA contribution limit, a proposal I have worked on for several years. The popularity of this issue is evidenced by the more than 222 bipartisan members who cosponsored my IRA legislation.
For years, millions of Americans have relied on Individual Retirement Accounts to help save for a secure retirement. However, despite their past success, IRAs are in danger of becoming obsolete because inflation is destroying much of their value. Since 1981 the limit on IRAs has been frozen. Had it simply kept pace with inflation, Americans would now be able to contribute $5,068 instead of only $2,000.
If IRAs are to continue to be a real help for people as they plan for their retirement years, it is past time for the federal government to allow higher contributions.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the National Science Act (H.R. 4271), which violates the limits on congressional power found in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th amendment to the Constitution by using tax monies unjustly taken from the American people to promote the educational objectives favored by a few federal politicians and bureaucrats. As an OB-GYN, I certainly recognize the importance of increasing the quality of science education as well as undertaking efforts to interest children in the sciences. However, while I share the goals of the drafters of this legislation, I recognize that Congress has no constitutional authority to single out any one academic discipline as deserving special emphasis. Instead, the decision about which subjects to emphasize should be made by local officials, educators and parents.
H.R. 4271 not only singles out science for special emphasis, certain positions of the bill will lead to a national science curriculum. For instance, the bill calls for the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to coordinate and disseminate information on ‘standard’ math and science curricula as well as licensing requirements for teachers of math, science, engineering or technology. While local school districts are not forced to adopt these standards, local schools will be pressured to adopt these standards because they are the ones favored by their DC-based overlords. I would also ask the drafters of this bill what purpose is served by spending taxpayer moneys to create and disseminate a model curriculum at the federal level if their intent is not to have local schools adopt the federally-approved model?
I also object to the provision of this bill providing special assistance to science teachers for training and professional development as well as grants for so-called ‘Master Teachers.’ Of course, I recognize that, like other citizens, teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed. This is why I have introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 937) which provides all teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. H.R. 937 effectively raises teacher salaries by lowering their taxes. In contrast H.R. 4271 raises the salaries of certain congressionally-favored educators by effectively cutting the pay of engineers, doctors, truck drivers, waiters, and even their fellow educators. Mr. Speaker, I cannot find any constitutional nor moral justification for Congress to redistribute money to any favorite class of professionals.
If the steady decline of America’s education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.
In order to put education resources back into the hands of the American people I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). This act provides a $3,000 per child tax credit for parents to help cover K-12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. HRs 935 and 936 move control of education resources back into the hands of the American people and help ensure parents can provide their children an excellent education. In fact, since the tax credits contained in H.R. 935 and H.R. 936 may be used to help finance the purchase of items necessary for a science education, such as labs equipment and computers, these bills will particularly benefit those citizens who wish to improve science education. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject the failed, unconstitutional command-and-control approach of H.R. 4271 and instead embrace my legislation to return control of education resources to the American people.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, Lake Texana (The Palmetto Bend Project), is located in my congressional district near Edna in the Texas Gulf Coast area about midway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Lake Texana supplies roughly 75,000 acre/feet per year of municipal and industrial water to a large multicounty area of Texas. The Lake Texana water is directly responsible for creating over 3,000 jobs in the cities of Edna and Victoria, Texas and water sales from the project make it financially self-sufficient.
S. 1474 merely facilitates the early payment of the project’s construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the Lavaca Navidad River Authority and Texas Water Development Board concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economic and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer.
This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as $1 million per year as well as provide an immediate infusion of millions of dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.
Texas has already demonstrated sound management of this resource. Recreational use of the lake has been well-provided under Texas state management to include provision of a marina, pavilion, playground, and boating docks, all funded without federal money. A woodland bird sanctuary and wildlife viewing area will also be established upon transfer with the assistance of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and several environmental organizations.
My thanks go to members and staff of both the Resources committee and the subcommittee on Energy and Water for their continued assistance with this bill as well as Senator Hutchison and her staff for working with me to move our bill in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request my colleague’s support for S. 1474 as passed by the Senate.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the Older Americans Act Reauthorization (H.R. 782) and explain why I must vote against this bill. Of course, I support efforts to ensure America’s senior citizens have access to employment, nutritional and other services; however the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor competent to provide such services.
Under the tenth amendment, the federal government is forbidden from interfering in areas such as providing employment and nutritional services to any group of citizens. Thus, when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to support these services, it is violating the constitution. In a constitutional republic, good intentions are no excuse for constitutional carelessness.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by involving itself in these areas, the federal government has politicized the offering of these services as well as assured inefficiencies in their delivery–inefficiencies that would not be present if the federal government respected its constitutional limits and allowed states, local communities and private citizens to provide these vital services to seniors. For example, one of the most contentious areas of this bill is the funding that goes to private organization to provide employment services. Many of these organizations are involved in partisan politics, and, because money is fungible, the federal grants to these organizations make taxpayers de facto underwriters of their political activities. As Thomas Jefferson said: ‘To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ action is inevitable whenever Congress exceeds its constitutional limitations and abuses the taxing power by forcing citizens to support the charitable activities of congressionally-favored organizations. One reason for this is that federal funding encourages these organizations to become involved in lobbying in order to gain more federal support. These organizations may even form alliances with other advocacy groups in order to build greater support for their cause.
When social services are nationalized, there is inevitably waste and inefficiency in the distribution of the services. This is because when the government administers social services the lion’s share of those services are provided to those with the most effective lobby or those whose Congressional representative is able to exercise the most clout at appropriations time. While I applaud the efforts of certain of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee to direct resources to where they are truly needed, particularly Mr. Barrett’s efforts to bring more resources to rural areas, the politicization of social services will inevitably result in some areas receiving inadequate funding to meet their demand for those services. I have little doubt that if these programs were restored to the private sector those areas with the greatest concentration of needy seniors would receive priority over those areas with the most powerful lobby.
There are ways to ensure that seniors have opportunities for productive lives without violating the constitution and politicizing charity. One way is to repeal the social security earnings limit, which punishes seniors who continue to work in the private sector. Another way is through generous tax credits and deductions for taxpayers who support charitable organization designed to provide services to individuals. Finally, the best way to aide the nation’s seniors, and those who are about to be seniors, is to stop raiding the nation’s social security system to finance other unconstitutional programs. This is why the first piece of legislation I introduced this year was The Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which would ensure that social security monies would be spent on social security. I was also a cosponsor of the legislation to end the earnings limit, which passed the House of Representatives this year. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to allow people to use more of their own resources to help the needy by expanding the charitable tax deduction.
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, when people still recognized their moral duty to voluntarily help their fellow humans rather than expect the government to coerce their fellow citizens to provide assistance through the welfare state, my parents were involved in a local Meals-on-Wheels program run by their church. I remember how upset they were when their local program was forced to conform to federal standards or close its program because Congress had decided to take control of delivering hot food to the elderly. It is time that this Congress return to the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and return responsibility for providing services to the nation’s seniors to states, communities, churches, and other private organizations who can provide those services much more effectively and efficiently than the federal government.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 20th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul joined over 380 of his Congressional colleagues in voting last night to pass the “Social Security Number Confidentiality Act”(H.R. 3218). The Act, introduced by Congressman Ken Calvert of California and cosponsored by Paul, was designed to ensure that Social Security numbers will no longer be visible through the window of benefits checks mailed each month to more than 14 million Americans. A growing number of Social Security recipients had become concerned that the visibility of the number in envelopes used by the Treasury department could leave them vulnerable to identity theft. In 1999, the Treasury department had to stop payment on more than one million Social Security checks which had been incorrectly issued to criminals who had assumed another’s identity by using the victim’s Social Security number.
Paul is known for his pro-privacy legislation in Congress. Last year he introduced the “Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act” (H.R. 220), which forbids the federal government from using Social Security numbers for purposes not related to the administration of benefits. “The Social Security number has become a national identifier used to track Americans from cradle to grave,” Paul stated. “It’s time to restore privacy to the American people by limiting the use of Social Security numbers by the invasive federal government. Congress should remember Franklin Roosevelt’s promise that only the Social Security Administration would ever know an individual’s number.”
The Treasury department originally had taken the position that Social Security numbers no longer would be visible on benefits checks in two to three years, the time needed to upgrade their computers for a new mailing system. However, Treasury officials ultimately agreed to begin using check numbers rather than Social Security numbers to identify and retrieve payments, acknowledging the inevitability of Congressional action.
“I’m encouraged that Congress supported this legislation,” Paul stated. “Seniors should not have to worry about identity theft each month when they receive their Social Security check. The Treasury department has an obligation to protect everyone’s private number from thieves. This bill forced the Treasury to take commonsense steps to protect the privacy of Social Security recipients.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 19th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support HR 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act. This bill takes a step toward protecting the integrity and security of the Social Security number by ensuring that window envelopes used by the Federal Government do not display an individual’s Social Security number. HR 3218 will help protect millions of Americans from the devastating crime of identity theft, which is a growing problem in my district and throughout the country.
This bill will be partially helpful to senior citizens who rely on Social Security. These seniors could lose a lifetime’s worth of savings if a criminal obtained their Social Security number. We owe it to America’s senior citizens to make sure that they are not exposed to the risk of identity theft as a price of receiving their Social Security benefits.
While this bill does represent a good step toward protecting privacy, I would remind my colleagues that much more needs to be done to ensure the Social Security number is not used as means of facilitating identity crimes. The increasing prevalence of identity theft is directly related to the use of the Social Security number as a uniform identifier.
For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is already a national identification number. Today, in the majority of states, no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers’ license, or receive a birth certificate for one’s child without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!
Unscrupulous people have found ways to exploit this system and steal another’s identity–the ubiquity of the Social Security number paved the way for these very predictable abuses and crimes. Congress must undo the tremendous injury done to the people’s privacy and security by the federal government’s various mandates which transformed the Social Security number into a universal identifier.
In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act also contains a blanket prohibition on the use of identifiers to ‘investigate, monitor, oversee, or otherwise regulate’ American citizens. Mr. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals.
While much of the discussion of identity theft and related threats to privacy has concerned private sector criminals, the major threat to privacy lies in the power uniform identifiers give to government officials. I am sure I need not remind my colleagues of the sad history of government officials of both parties using personal information contained in IRS or FBI files against their political enemies, or of the cases of government officials rummaging through the confidential files of celebrities and/or their personal acquaintances, or of the Medicare clerk who sold confidential data about Medicare patients to a Health Maintenance Organization. After considering these cases, one cannot help but shudder at the potential for abuse if an unscrupulous government official is able to access one’s complete medical, credit, and employment history by simply typing the citizens’ ‘uniform identifier’ into a database.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I enthusiastically join in supporting HR 3218 which will help protect millions of senior citizens and other Americans from identity theft by strengthening the confidentiality of the Social Security number. I also urge my colleagues to protect all Americans from the threat of national identifiers by supporting my Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 19th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of hearing remarks made by our former House colleague, Bob Bauman of Maryland, at a meeting of the Eris Society in Colorado. Since his talk centered on banking, financial and related privacy issues pending before the Congress, I want to share his view with the House as an informed statement of the threats to financial freedom posed by the Clinton administration’s policies.
Mr. Bauman, the author of several books on offshore financial topics, serves as legal counsel to The Sovereign Society (http://www.sovereignsaociety.com), an international group of citizens concerned with the government encroachment on financial freedom.
Remarks of Robert E. Bauman, Eris Conference, Durango, Colorado, August 12, 2000.
I take as my theme two quotations, one from the Gospel of St. Matthew, 20:15–’Do not I have the right to do what I want with my own money?’
The second is from Mayer Amschel Rothchild (1743-1812), founder of the famous banking dynasty, the House of Rothchild, who said: ‘Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.’ Both quotes have relevance to what I have to say.
If you are fortunate enough to fall into the estimated group of six million millionaires worldwide now in existence, a number noted in a study by Merrill Lynch last year, you automatically may be a criminal suspect.
I say ‘suspect’ because Citibank views these wealthy people, who control approximately 21 trillion-six hundred billion dollars, as potential financial criminals simply because of their wealth. Citibank announced last year that their 40,000 private banking clients, each of whom had to prove a personal net worth of $3 million in order to qualify for the bank’s services, are watched every minute of every day to see if they may be engaged in money laundering or other financial crimes. I am certain other banks do as well.
The constant surveillance is accomplished, as is most privacy invasion these days, by a special banking computer software program called ‘America’s Software’ which allows every transaction in any account to be watched constantly. It produces a daily record for bank officials, who now have certain obligations imposed by US law that require the reporting of ‘suspicious activities’ to federal agents. Transfers of large amounts of cash or other unusual account activity rings alarm bells and results in an investigation not revealed to the ‘suspect’ banking client under penalty of law.
We can conclude from this Draconian arrangement, for one thing, that a person of great wealth who establishes a private banking relationship with a major bank now is presumed to be a
I was at a conference on April 22, 1999 in Miami sponsored by the respected publication, Money Laundering Alert. Lester Joseph, Assistant Chief of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said that the U.S. Government officially views any offshore financial activity by US persons–any offshore financial activity–especially the use of tax havens, as potential criminal money laundering activity.
Now, it’s quite obvious that financial activities in which a person engages when wealth is moved offshore for asset protection, for broader investment potential, for any number of legitimate reasons, for possible tax savings, any of these moves, are innocent in themselves. Former Secretary of the US Treasury, Robert Rubin, admitted in congressional testimony last year, it is the intention behind these innocent financial moves that government agents want to police for possible criminal investigation and prosecution.
So now we have the government money police targeting normal financial activities that until recently have been perfectly legal, simply because a person decides in his own best interests, to go offshore. We all know that in the US, African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other racial minorities have been unfairly subject to police ‘profiling.’ Add to that list of ‘presumed guilty,’ Americans who engaged in offshore financial activity.
I’m not a defender of wealth per se. I wish I had wealth to defend, but I am a defender of freedom. There can be no freedom, personal or otherwise, without wealth, without the right to own and use one’s own property as one see fit. Remove property rights and you have no means to sustain life for yourself or your family. But now the acquisition and accumulation of productive wealth has become officially suspect in America.
For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money.
Now we have what I call the ‘Nazification’ of the financial system, not only in America but worldwide. I don’t use that term lightly. As a matter of historic fact, the civil forfeiture laws in this country mirror in many major respects the Nazi forfeiture laws that were used to confiscate the property of the Jews. I am a member of the board of directors of Forfeiture Endangers American
The genesis of this ‘wealth=crime’ policy can be found in that infamous political and moral failure, the so-called ‘war on drugs.’ One of the primary weapons of this ill-begotten war has been civil forfeiture, where police seize cash and property based on rumor or hearsay. In 80% of the cases, the owner is never charged with any crime, but usually the police keep the loot. Many police have long since turned their attention away from drugs, and instead pursue the cash and property they use to lard their budgets. Thankfully, my former colleague, Henry Hyde of Illinois, led the successful legislative battle for some much needed civil forfeiture reform which recently became law.
As part of the drug war that progressed and expanded (but is never victorious), the catch all crime of ‘money laundering’ was invented: an all purpose federal prosecutors’ dream. The anti-money laundering statutes that have grown like a malignancy. Charges of money laundering now routinely are shown in with almost every possible criminal indictment, often as a bargaining chip and/or a means to confiscate the wealth of the accused even before trial. Try hiring a good defense attorney when your bank account has been frozen.
Laws enacted under the banner of the war on drugs intentionally have forced bankers to become spies for the federal financial police. The bankers’ primary allegiance now is not to customers or clients, but to the government.
At the Miami conference, scores of bank officials were instructed how to question clients, watch account activity, and report any ‘suspicious activity’. Suspicious activity reports (SARs) are filed by the tens of thousands every month, produce voluminous computer records, encourage potential criminal investigations, allow prosecutors to bully citizens, but in the end very few SARs put criminals in jail. What this success process has produced is the mushrooming of federal prosecutorial staffs, US attorneys budgets, the power and costs of the US Department of Justice and the welfare of the bureaucrats and lawyers who feast at the taxpayers’ trough.
That great economist, Wilhelm Roepke, once wrote: ‘It is very easy to awaken resentment against people who not only have money, but also the boldness to send that money abroad in order to protect it against all manner of domestic insecurity. It’s vital that people in their means of existence, that is, capital, still have the chance to move about internationally, and when absolutely necessary, to escape the arbitrariness of government policy by means of secret back doors.’
Consider that expressed view in the context of what is known as ‘expatriation,’ the human right to acquire a new nationality and renounce one’s old citizenship. We, as a nation of immigrants, should cherish that right.
In November 1994 Forbes magazine published an infamous article which identified a handful
In truth, there are very legitimate financial reasons for an American citizen to ‘go offshore’. These include avoiding exposure to costly domestic litigation and excessive court damage judgements and jury awards, protection of assets, unreasonable SEC restrictions on foreign investments, the availability of more attractive and private offshore bank accounts, life insurance policies and annuities, avoidance of probate and reduction of estate taxes.
But Americans who have followed this prudent course now find themselves lumped together with drug lords, tax cheats, dirty money launderers, disease carriers and assorted criminals. What is legal and legitimate is made to look sinister and evil.
There is a decided international dimension to this domestic U.S. campaign against wealth. Beginning last June, the news media took belated notice of offshore tax havens and their thriving financial centers as a newly discovered international threat. A frenzy of publicity surrounded the serial publication of spurious ‘blacklists’ by previously unnoticed international organizations. None of these self-appointed, self-important groups enjoy any legal standing, but they proceeded to announce exactly how the international financial world should conduct its affairs. Those nations in disagreement with the OECD world view were threatened with financial boycotts and unexplained ‘sanctions’ to be imposed by June 2001.
These organizations include the Paris-based organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which loudly denounces what it calls ‘harmful tax competition’ is composed of representatives from major high tax nations. An OECD subsidiary is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a sort of financial Gestapo that pronounces who is legal and who is not legal in terms of money laundering activity.
Yet a third group without no basis in international law calls itself the ‘Financial Stability Forum.’ This is a subgroup of the G-7 nations and has taken it upon itself to decide which nations are good or bad in cooperation for capital flows.
All of these organizations are self-anointed and don’t have any more standing than the International Tennis Association as far as legal capacity to impose their decisions. They are little more than public relations mouthpieces of an international cartel of rich nations trying to suppress tax havens and other nations that have profited from fully legal tax competition.
In an obviously co-ordinated effort starting last May, these organizations each issued its own ‘blacklist’ of nations it found deficient in various ways. The FSF attached those it claimed were disruptive to international financial activity. FATF issued a list of countries allegedly lax on money laundering. The OECD came out with list of nations engaged in ‘unfair tax competition’. It was no coincidence that most of the world’s no-tax financial haven nations were on all these phony lists. A small coterie of statist bureaucrats in the financial ministries of the major nations had coordinated their propaganda work well: an uneducated, gullible global news media swallowed this phony story whole.
Every one of the wealthy nations that are pushing this attack on tax havens are controlled by high-tax, socialist governments who see a tax and wealth hemorrhage occurring among their citizens. Yes, millions, billions of dollars, pounds and francs are pouring out of high tax nations flowing to offshore tax havens–and for very good reasons. Why would anyone in his right mind continue to pay confiscatory taxes when you can move your financial activity to another nation where you pay no personal or corporate income tax, no estate tax, no capital gains tax?
Ignored in this concerted attack on small tax haven nations is the simple fact that under current U.S. and UK tax laws the biggest tax savings for foreigners can be found in Britain and in the United States. The United States is one of the biggest tax havens in the world–but only for non-U.S. persons. And in spite of the known fact that most of the dirty money laundering in the world takes place in London and New York, neither nation is on the FATF money laundering blacklist.
All this is really a smoke screen for increased tax collection. Feeling the tax drain, the rich nations want an end to all those factors that make tax haven attractive: They demand that taxes be imposed where there are none, want an end to financial and banking privacy and ‘free exchange’ of information, want complete ‘transparency’, and want these small nations to become tax collectors for the rich, welfare state nations. In other words, they want tax havens to become just like the profligate major nations.
This new cartel of high-tax nations, limping along with their huge, unsustainable welfare state budgets, are engaged in a grotesque rebirth of colonialism and imperialism of a financial nature. They are willing to trample the sovereignty of small nations. In fact, the United Nations last year said national sovereignty must be compromised in order to impose a world financial order of high taxes and no financial privacy. Such a radical demand mocks international law. It makes vassal states out of sovereign nations.
This wrong headed approach flies in the face of every development that is producing the new prosperity: the Internet, e-commerce, globalization, cross border investment worldwide. For that reason alone, this effort will fail. Just as the legendary King Canute could not hold back the ocean tides, the rich nations will be swept away in their effort to impose their will on the world.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 14th, 2000
Washington, D.C.- Congressman Ron Paul received another award this week for his work on behalf of small businesses. The Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) named Paul an honorary member of the group in recognition of his support for America’s entrepreneurs. The honorary membership was extended to members of Congress who demonstrated a consistent record of support for the small business community during the 106th Congress.
“Representative Paul has demonstrated outstanding support for small business men and women across America, as shown by his consistent fight against the unchecked growth of government that threatens to stifle prosperity and innovation,” stated SBSC President Christopher Wysocki. “The people of Texas and America can be proud that Representative Paul is standing up for the small business community and working to make sure that our economy continues to grow, so that we may all be a part of the American dream.”
The SBSC is a nonpartisan and nonprofit advocacy group that represents more than 60,000 small business people nationwide. It supports small business by promoting free-market values through its Washington office and Web site.
“It is very easy for legislators to be swayed by the big special interests into voting against the small entrepreneur, but Representative Paul has shown a commitment to the belief that free enterprise, the entrepreneurial spirit, economic growth, and prosperity are the backbone of our flourishing nation,” Wysocki concluded.
Congressman Paul received high marks for his votes on a variety of issues, particularly taxes. Paul has been an outspoken critic of the estate tax, which is especially devastating for small businesses. He also has introduced legislation that would end onerous payroll taxes, which place a heavy compliance burden on small businesses.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 12th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 years to 4 years, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions trying to sound a warning about both our foreign policy and our monetary policy. Today our monetary policy and our foreign policy have clashed. We see now that we face serious problems, not only in the Middle East, but on our financial markets.
Yesterday, I talked a bit about what I see as a financial bubble that has developed over the past decade and made the point that a financial bubble can be financed through borrowing money, as well as inflation. A financial bubble is essentially a consequence of inflation. A lot of people talk about inflation being the mere rising of some prices, but that is not the case.
Most good economists recognize that inflation is a consequence of monetary policy; as one increases the supply of money, it inflates the currency. This distorts interest rates, and it distorts the markets. Sometimes this goes into goods and services, and other times these excessive funds will go into marketplaces and distort the value of stocks and bonds.
I believe this is what has happened for the past 10 years. Mr. Speaker, so in spite of the grand prosperity that we have had for this past decade, I believe it is an illusion in many ways, because we have not paid for it. In a true capitalist society, true wealth comes from hard work and savings.
Today, the American people have a negative savings rate, which means that we get our so-called capital from a printing press, because there are no savings and no funds to invest. The Federal Reserve creates these funds to be invested. On a short-term, this seems to benefit everyone.
The poor like it because they seem to get welfare benefits from it; and certainly the rich like it, because it motivates and stimulates their businesses; and politicians like it, because it takes care of deficits and it stimulates the economy.
The only problem with this is it always ends, and it always ends badly. And this is the reason that we have to meet up with a policy that seems ridiculous. The economy seems to be doing quite well, but the Federal Reserve comes along and says there is a problem with economic growth. Economic growth might cause prices to go up; so, therefore, what we have to do is cut off the economic growth. If you have slower growth, the prices will not go up any longer.
They are talking about a symptom and not the cause. The cause is the Federal Reserve. The problem is that the Federal Reserve has been granted authority that is unconstitutional to go and counterfeit money, and until we recognize that and deal with that, we will continue to have financial problems.
We have heard that the 1990s was a different decade, it was a new era, economy, exactly what we heard throughout the decade prior to the collapse of the markets in Japan. The markets have now been down more than 50 percent in Japan for more than 10 years, and there is no sign of significant recovery there.
Also there were other times in our history when they talked about a new era economy.
Let me read a quote: ‘With growing optimism, they gave birth to a foolish idea called the New Economic Era. That notion spread over the whole country. We were assured that we were in a new period where the old laws of economics no longer applied.’ Herbert Hoover in his memoirs.
It is an illusion to believe that the new paradigm exists. Actually, the computer industry involves 5 percent of the economy; 95 percent is what they called the old economy. I ascribe to old economic laws, because the truth is, we cannot change economic laws. And if inflating a currency distorts the market and the boom leads to the bust, that cannot be repelled.
If we are looking towards bad times, it is not because of current policy, it is because of previous policy, the previous policy of the 10 years, the time when we live beyond our means. We say how did we live beyond our means? Where did the money come from? Are we not spending less than Washington? No, we are not spending less in Washington. Are not the deficits a lot less? They are less, but they are not gone.
Where did we borrow from? We borrowed from overseas. We have a current account deficit that requires over a billion dollars a day that we borrow from foreigners just to finance our current account deficit. We are now the greatest debtor in the world, and that is a problem. This is why the markets are shaky, and this is why the markets have been going down for 6 months, and this is why in a foreign policy crisis such as we are facing in the Middle East, we will accentuate these problems. Therefore, the foreign policy of military interventionism overseas is something that we should seriously question.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: