April 26th, 2001
<br />
Introduction of the Agriculture Education Freedom Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. 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 about 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 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:
April 26th, 2001
<br />
Repeal of the Selective Service Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today’s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . I fear that this source is not widely read among many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally applicable to our current selective service system and the registration requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act.
[Taipei Times on line edition, Thurs. Apr. 26, 2001]
CONSCRIPTION IS HARMING TAIWAN
By Chang Yung-chien
Some time ago, the media reported on would-be conscripts scrambling to grab a place in the “alternative service” to military conscription. There is now an uproar over President Chen Shul-blan’s future son-in-law, who escaped doing his term of military service because he had gout. The issue of military service has again struck a sensitive chord in Taiwan’s society.
Why do so many people feel disgruntled?
This writer has always advocated a volunteer military recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these reasons totally incomprehensible.
Military recruitment is a public policy matter. It needs to undergo an analysis for cost-effectiveness. Why do we have “reserve officers” and “alternative service” systems?
We have them precisely so that skilled people can be more valuable for the country if they are pulled out from the ranks to serve as platoon leaders or as cheap labor for high-tech companies. Once this point is clear, then the alternative service system will seem quite strange. Someone with a PhD in electrical engineering would be working in a high-tech company anyway if he were not doing alternative service. The only difference is that he would be getting a reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay. By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical engineering can get paid according to her market value because she does not have to do military service. NVhy should we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to corporations?
Moreover, society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited almost a year to be conscripted–doing nothing (of course, two years of military service are also spent doing nothing). Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They waste the most creative time of their lives writing military reports that do not help the nation’s economy or the people’s livelihood.
How many people have left the country before conscription age just to evade those two years, and come back only after they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How many mutinies have we had in the armed forces?
Our president, who can carry his wife to and from her wheelchair every day, did not have to do military service because of a problem with his “hands.” And the president’s future son-in-law is busy running in
I would also like to ask: Why can’t I finish my studies before serving my country? Even if I have to serve two years as a conscript, I will be of far more use to the country providing legal services to ordinary citizens than just do drills and jogging. How much more of its human resources can Taiwan afford to waste?
As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the military simply means loafing around, then such service may be worth less than NT$10,000 a month. But there should be no such “profession.” If being a soldier is a high-risk profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government, but it must be remembered that only people who can freely enter various professions on the job market can maximize their value.
Unless we believe that the average productivity of conscription-age males is worth less than NT$10,000 or so per month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth without conscription than the government coffers have to lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those conscription-aged men who would be working in society instead.
No talk about “honor” solves any problems. Everyone sets out from a rational, self-interested standpoint. What the state should do is maximize the benefits for society as a whole, not limit its thinking to military service. Maintaining a conscription system certainly does more harm than good. Those who wear the badge “being a soldier is a good experience” should ask themselves whether they would be willing to do it again.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 26th, 2001
<br />
Statement on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn ?
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply–it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence–yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb… ” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions–it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 25th, 2001
<br />
A New China Policy<br />
President Bush deserves much credit for the handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was “very” sorry for the incident. This seems a “very” small price to pay for the safe return of 24 American military personnel. Trade with China though should be credited for helping to resolve this crisis. President Bush, in the diplomatic handling of this event, avoided overly strong language and military threats, which would have done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans.
This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade with China, for economic reasons, encouraged both America and China to work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with China should be reconsidered. What today is called free trade is not exactly that. Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of many billions of dollars through the Export/Import Bank- the most of any country in the world.
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It’s a risky, inconsistent policy.
The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air space of the Gulf of Mexico?? We must realize that China is a long way from the US and is not capable, nor is she showing any signs, of launching an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States.
Throughout all of China’s history she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yaloo River.
It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft, although it technically was the cause of the accident. Don’t forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976, it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia–in crates.
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually a strong case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights altogether. After a half a century it’s time to reassess the need for such flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and to listen to almost everyone on earth. If there is a precise need for this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel. We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological reassurance that we’re still the top military power in the world. This is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than strength.
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.
It is clear that war can only be declared by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us to war at some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war.
We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists and should be encouraged. It’s a fact that trade did help to resolve this current crisis without a military confrontation.
Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods, as some would like, but they do come back and they serve to finance our current account deficit.
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export/Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military technology to such a nation, or to any nation for that matter.
It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles, coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid, were seen on the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear that arming the enemies of our trading partners doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the weaponry of Taiwan, and to maintain an open commitment to send our troops if the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence, is foolhardy and risky.
Don’t forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a “monster to slay” in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures- some of these are planned, some contrived, and some accidental.
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.
We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their problems. Needless to say we don’t have the legal authority to do so either.
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.
It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border.
James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident President Eisenhower said, “We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not.”
We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years. It’s time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions, especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation.
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully.
Today, it looks like there’s a much better chance of North and South Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of bombs to resolve the conflict, which was unsuccessful.
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a peaceful trade with the people with Vietnam. Our willingness over the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect.
It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 24th, 2001
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul ranked first among more than 500 Senators and Representatives in voting to lower federal taxes and spending last year! The National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizens organization, recently released its annual rating of fiscal policy votes for the year 2000. Congressman Paul was #1, voting consistently to reduce taxes, spending, debt, and regulation.
“Congressman Paul’s pro-taxpayer score was the best in the entire House and Senate,” stated NTU President John Berthoud. “Year after year he consistently earns the title ‘Taxpayers Friend.’ Many members of Congress talk about reducing the size of government, but Ron Paul backs up the words with votes. He always votes against taxes and spending on principle, without regard to special interest pressures. He is an effective ally in our battle to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.”
Unlike other organizations, NTU receives bipartisan praise for its innovative rating system. One Senator said that NTU’s roll call rating system “is the most comprehensive and the most objective. It covers virtually every vote involving federal money. It makes no effort to provide a self-serving moral assessment.”
“If the current Congress cannot overcome the urge to splurge and a reluctance to trim taxes, our economy could be in for a devastating one-two punch,” Berthoud concluded. “But Congress can avoid this knockout blow to hard-working Americans, by joining Ron Paul in voting for taxpayer interests instead of special interests.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 24th, 2001
<br />
Free Trade<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in today’s Wall Street Journal which is headlined “Free Trade Doesn’t Require Treaties”. The column is authored by Pierre Lemieux, a professor of economics at the University of Quebec.
Professor Lemieux seems to grasp quite well what few in Congress have come to understand–that is, “The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice–even if the former is a consequence of the latter.” Mr. Lemieux went on to point out that the leaders of the 34 participating states in the recent Quebec summit “are much keener on managed trade than on free trade and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions.”
The professor’s comments are not unlike those of the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, devotee of the methodologically-superior Austrian school, who, with respect to NAFTA, had the following to say:
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” (and the impending request for fast track authority) fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. Lemieux’s column and encourage the recognition “that free trade is but the individual’s liberty to exchange across political borders.”
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001]
FREE TRADE DOESN’T REQUIRE TREATIES
(By Pierre Lemieux)
MONTREAL.
The decades preceding World War I were a period of globalization that was at least as extensive as today’s. To the extent that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) moves this continent to ward freer trade, it would help recover the lost promise of the pre-1914 world. But the Quebec summit sent conflicting messages, none of them revolutionary.
The leaders of the 34 participating states showed that they are much keener on managed trade than on free trade, and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions. “The creation of a free trade area is not an end in itself,” said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
With excruciating political correctness, he added: “We have focused on a global action plan of co-operation to reduce poverty, protect the environment, promote the adoption of labor standards and encourage corporate responsibility.” The participants’ “Plan of Action” contained measures that range from tobacco regulation and gun control to the monitoring of financial transactions.
What of the “no passport” world celebrated by Keynes? In Quebec, as at other international trade meetings, state representatives behaved as agents of their country’s exporters. You give us this “concession,” they intone, and we will allow your exporters to enter our markets in return. Yet this misrepresents grossly the nature of trade and a free economy.
The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice–even if the former is a consequence of the latter. By presenting themselves as members of an exporters’ club, trade negotiators lay themselves open to attack by those who claim that free trade only works to the benefit of corporations.
Economists have known for centuries that free trade can be promoted without free-trade agreements. A country’s inhabitants would obtain many of the advantages of free trade if only their own government would stop imposing restrictions on imports. Behind the veil of financial transactions, products are ultimately exchanged against products, so that the more imports that come into a country, the more will foreign demand grow for its exports. Or else, foreign exporters will have to invest in the country, thereby creating a trade deficit; nothing wrong with that either.
In other words, if you want free trade, just trade. Much of the pre-World War I free trade was, indeed, due to Britain’s unilateral free-trade policies.
Trade agreements are only helpful to the extent that they help tame domestic producers’ interests, support the primacy of consumers, and lock-in the gains from trade. Such treaties should not aim at reducing competition by pursuing other goals, of the sort embraced by the heads of state at Quebec. That would amount to no more than managed trade, the pursuit of which, paradoxically, might be said to unite both the leaders present and the mobs demonstrating against them.
William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the Financial Post that the demonstrators who don’t trust governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily, from political constituencies generally known for their blind faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists, they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults, actually increase state power.
On one stretch of Saturday’s march, demonstrators wore large bar codes taped to their mouths, as if free trade meant turning them into speechless numbers. How droll! These demonstrators were certainly, and perhaps proudly, carrying in their wallets government-imposed Social Security numbers, drivers’ licenses and Medicare cards, which, surely, have made them numbered state cattle. Another fabulous irony: American would-be demonstrators complained about being denied entry into Canada, while their entire message is predicated on tighter borders.
Once we realize that free trade is but the individual’s liberty to exchange across political borders, it is easy to see that forbidding it requires punishment or threats of punishment. You have to fine or jail the importer who doesn’t abide by trade restrictions. In FTAA debates as in other trade issues, a source of much confusion is the failure to realize that free trade is a consequence of individual sovereignty.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 17th, 2001
Lake Jackson, Texas- Representative Ron Paul was honored Thursday as a “Champion of the Constitution” by the Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy. More than 200 constituents and community leaders joined Paul for the award ceremony at the Lake Jackson Civic Center. The theme of the evening was “We Want Less,” celebrating Paul’s commitment to less taxation, less regulation, and less government.
“Ron Paul has consistently stood on the side of taxpayers and consumers in their battle against bigger government and higher taxes,” said Peggy Venable, director of the Texas CSE. “He has also been a guardian of the Constitution in his efforts to maintain the proper role of government.”
CSE is a nonpartisan grassroots organization that believes in individual liberty, the free market, lower taxes, and less government spending. Paul’s support for these principles and his voting record in Congress made him an obvious choice to receive the award.
“We need more Congressional members like Ron Paul who come to Washington and truly represent their constituents,” stated Matt Kibbe, vice-president of the national CSE. “He consistently votes to lower taxes and reduce government intrusion into citizens’ lives and livelihoods.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 5th, 2001
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul yesterday joined more than 260 of his Congressional colleagues in voting to repeal the harmful estate tax. The repeal represents the third plank of President Bush’s tax cut plan; Paul also voted to lower marginal rates and eliminate the marriage tax penalty earlier this year.
“The estate tax is immoral and counter-productive,” Paul stated. “It amounts to government confiscation of an individual’s property when he or she dies. Furthermore, it is a terrible form of double taxation. Americans pay federal and state income taxes on their wages throughout their lives. They pay income and capital gains taxes on money they save and invest. They pay sales taxes when they buy something. It is outrageous to tax them once again when they die, simply because they have worked hard and saved to create a legacy to pass on to their families.”
Estate taxes represent a very small portion of federal tax revenues (approximately 1.5%). The economic impact of the estate taxes, however, is widespread. Because of the complexity of the estate tax, Americans must spend millions every year on attorneys and accountants to minimize their tax burdens.
“It’s a myth that only the rich are affected by estate taxes,” Paul continued. “Virtually all economists agree that the tax discourages work, savings, and thrift. Less savings results in less capital formation, which reduces economic development. My office has received hundreds of letters and emails from individuals and small business owners in my district. Theses people are not rich, but they have worked hard and saved to create an inheritance for their children. They are concerned that their children may have to sell the family farm or business simply to pay the estate tax bill. There is no justification for taxing these people once again simply because they have led productive lives.”
Paul is optimistic about Senate support for the estate tax repeal: “Washington politicians know that Americans across the country oppose the death tax. I applaud the Bush administration for its efforts in making the repeal a legislative priority.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
April 4th, 2001
“There are a lot of questions that people can raise about how the tax system in this country is structured, how the tax code is structured, but that’s why we have a democracy. We have a Congress and everybody has the right to go talk to their congressman or senator about what they like and don’t like about the tax code.”
IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, commenting on small business owners challenging withholding tax rules, CBS 60 Minutes II, Tuesday April 3
Congressman Ron Paul agrees with the Commissioner- taxpayers do have a right to present their grievances to Congress. Paul also believes it is time for Congress to act on those grievances. Accordingly, he introduced legislation yesterday which would radically change the way income taxes are collected in this country. The “Cost of Government Awareness Act” (HR 1364) eliminates withholding tax laws, freeing employers from the burden of acting as unpaid tax collectors for the IRS. The Act restores to all Americans the right to collect their entire paycheck, determine their own tax liability, and pay their tax bill directly to the IRS.
“Withholding taxes are inherently deceptive,” Paul stated. “The government’s premise is simple: the taxpayer won’t miss the money he never gets. So taxes presumptively are taken directly from paychecks, often resulting in an interest-free loan by taxpayers to the Treasury. Some taxpayers even celebrate receiving a tax refund of their own money, which the Treasury kept for a year! The goal of withholding is to make taxpayers less aware of how much they really pay each month to fund our massive federal government. This deception has made it much easier for Congress to increase taxes steadily over the past sixty years. I want taxpayers to keep all of their paychecks, and pay for government each month with their mortgage and other bills. Then Americans will see just how much of their income goes to taxes, and hopefully they will demand real spending and tax reform.”
“Furthermore, the withholding rules force private employers to act as unpaid IRS collection agents,” Paul continued. “No employer should be forced to determine, let alone collect, the federal tax liabilities of its individual employees. The Indianapolis Baptist Temple tragedy shows what happens when employers refuse to be IRS slaves- they have their assets seized. The Temple’s employees paid their taxes in full as individuals, but the IRS was not about to allow its rules to be flouted. American businesses spend millions and waste countless hours complying with the withholding laws. Congress must act now to end the withholding slavery imposed on our nation’s employers.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: