June 28th, 2001
<br />
Introduction of Education Bills<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two bills designed to help improve education by reducing taxes on parents, teachers, and all Americans who wish to help improve education. The first bill, the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, extends the HOPE Scholarship tax credit to K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the HOPE Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents finally afford to send their child to a private school, while other parents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their childrens’ school.
Mr. Speaker, reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools. This is not just because expanding the HOPE Scholarship bill will increase the funds devoted to education but because, to use a popular buzz word, individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education, or for students performance on a test that may measure little more than test-taking skills or the ability of education bureaucrats to design or score the test so that “no child is left behind,” regardless of the child’s actual knowledge. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction into fulfilling bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The only way to change this system is to restore control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools meet their demands that children be provided a quality education.
My other bill, the “Professional Educators Tax Relief Act” provides a thousand dollar per year tax credit to all professional educators, including librarians, counselors, and others involved in implementing or formulating the curriculum. This bill helps equalize the pay gap between educators and other professionals, thus ensuring that quality people will continue to seek out careers in education. Good teaching is the key to a good education, so it is important that Congress raise the salaries of educators by cutting their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring my Hope Plus Scholarship Act and my Professional Educators Tax Cut Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 27th, 2001
<br />
Postal Service has its Eye on You<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues’ attention to the attached article “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” by John Berlau of Insight magazine, which outlines the latest example of government spying on innocent citizens. Mr. Berlau deals with the Post Office’s “Under the Eagle’s Eye” program which the Post Office implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act. Under this program, postal employees must report purchases of money orders of over $3,000 to federal law enforcement officials. The program also requires postal clerks to report any “suspicious behavior” by someone purchasing a money order. Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for reporting “suspicious behavior” are so broad that anyone whose actions appear to a postal employee to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary could become the subject of a “suspicious activity report,” and a federal investigation!
As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process.
I am sure I do not need to remind my colleagues of the public’s fierce opposition to the “Know Your Customer” proposal, or the continuing public outrage over the Post Office’s proposal to increase monitoring of Americans who choose to receive their mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency (CMRA). I have little doubt that Americans will react with the same anger when they discover that the Post Office is filing reports on them simply because they appeared “suspicious” to a postal clerk.
This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office’s regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these “Know Your Customer” type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau’s article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying “Eagle Eye” of the Federal Government.
POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU
(By John Berlau)
Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, ‘Under the Eagle’s Eye,’ and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement.
Remember “Know Your Customer”? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer’s “normal and expected transactions” and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a “suspicious activity.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition.
But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a “suspicious” customer. It doesn’t matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video obtained by Insight, is: “It’s better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal ID transaction get by.”
Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post office’s customer-surveillance program, called “Under the Eagle’s Eye,” to the “Know Your Customer” rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual also obtained by Insight, postal clerks are admonished to “know your customers.”
Both the manual and the training video give a broad definition of “suspicious” in instructing clerks when to fill out a “suspicious activity report” after a customer has made a purchase. “The rule of thumb is if it seems suspicious to you, then it is suspicious,” says the manual. “As we said before, and will say again, it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.”
It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn’t know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. Ron Paul.
The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of “Know Your Customer,” this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. “The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers’ privacy,” Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. “This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government’s business. I had thought the postal-service’s eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, ‘We’re watching you!’ “
But postal officials who run “Under the Eagle’s Eye” say that flagging customers who do not follow “normal” patterns is essential if law enforcement is to catch criminals laundering money from illegal transactions. “The postal service has a responsibility to know what their legitimate customers are doing with their instruments,” Al Gillum, a former postal inspector who now is acting program manager, tells Insight. “If people are buying instruments outside of a norm that the entity itself has to establish, then that’s where you-start with suspicious analysis, suspicious reporting. It literally is based on knowing what our legitimate customers do, what activities they’re involved in.”
Gillum’s boss, Henry Gibson, the postal-service’s Bank Secrecy Act compliance officer, says the anti-money-laundering program started in 1997 already has helped catch some criminals. “We’ve received acknowledgment from our chief postal inspector that information from our system was very helpful in the actual catching of some potential bad guys,” Gibson says.
Gillum and Gibson are proud that the postal service received a letter of commendation from then-attorney general Janet Reno in 2000 for this program. The database system the postal service developed with Information Builders, an information-technology consulting firm, received an award from Government Computer News in 2000 and was a finalist in the government/nonprofit category for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program. An Information Builders press release touts the system as “a standard for Bank Secrecy Act compliance and anti-money-laundering controls.”
Gibson and Gillum say the program resulted from new regulations created by the Clinton-era Treasury Department in 1997 to apply provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act to “money service businesses” that sell financial instruments such as stored-value cash cards, money orders and wire transfers, as well as banks. Surprisingly, the postal service sells about one-third of all U.S. money orders, more than $27 billion last year. It also sells stored-value cards and some types of wire transfers. Although the regulations were not to take effect until 2002, Gillum says the postal service wanted to be “proactive” and “visionary.”
Postal spokesmen emphasize strongly that programs take time to put in place and they are doing only what the law demands.
It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the “Know Your Customer” rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy. Lawrence Lindsey, now head of the Bush administration’s National Economic Council, frequently has pointed out that more than 100,000 reports are collected on innocent bank customers for every one conviction of money laundering. “That ratio of 99,999-to-1 is something we normally would not tolerate as a reasonable balance between privacy and the collection of guilty verdicts,” Lindsey wrote in a chapter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s book The Future of Financial Privacy, published last year.
Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency’s reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. “It sounds to me that they’re going past the Treasury guidelines,” says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of “red flags,” such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders.
The video, which Gibson says cost $90,000 to make, uses entertaining special effects to illustrate its points. Employing the angel-and-devil technique often used in cartoons, the video presents two tiny characters in the imagination of a harried clerk. Regina Goodclerk, the angel, constantly urges the clerk to file suspicious-activity reports on customers. “Better safe than sorry,” she says. Sam Slick, the devil, wants to give customers the benefit of the doubt.
Some of the examples given are red flags such as a sleazy-looking customer offering the postal clerk a bribe. But the video also encourages reports to be filed on what appear to be perfectly legal money-order purchases. A black male teacher and Little League coach whom the female clerk, also black, has known for years walks into the post office wearing a crisp, pinstriped suit and purchases $2,800 in money orders, just under the $3,000 daily minimum for which the postal service requires customers to fill out a form. He frequently has been buying money orders during the last few days.
“Gee, I know he seems like an okay guy,” Regina Goodclerk tells the employee. “But buying so many money orders all of a
Gillum says this is part of the message that postal clerks can’t be too careful because anyone could be a potential money launderer. “A Little League coach could be a deacon in the church, could be the most upstanding citizen in the community, but where is that person getting $2,800 every day?” Gillum asks. “Why would a baseball coach, a schoolteacher in town, buy [that many money orders]? Our customers don’t have that kind of money. If he’s a schoolteacher, if he’s got a job on the side, he’s going to have a bank account and going to write checks on it, so why does he want to buy money orders? That’s the point.”
Despite the fact that the Little League coach in the video was black, Gillum insists that the postal service tells its employees not to target by race or appearance.
One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105-A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driver’s license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105-B, the “suspicious-activity” report. “Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105-A form to one that doesn’t should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form,” the training manual says.
But the “suspicious” customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. “I think there’s a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think it’s none of the post office’s business,” Singleton tells Insight. “The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect.”
Both Singleton and Nojeim say “Under the Eagle’s Eye” unfairly targets the poor, minorities and immigrants–people outside of the traditional banking system. “A large proportion of the reports will be immigrants sending money back home,” Nojeim says. Singleton adds, “It lends itself to discrimination against people who are sort of marginally part of the ordinary banking system or who may not trust things like checks and credit cards.”
There’s also the question of what happens with the information once it’s collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about “suspicious” customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerks’ reports if they fit “known parameters” for suspicious activity. “We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights,” Gillum insists. “For what it’s worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders.”
But Gillum would not discuss any of the “parameters” the postal service uses to test for suspicious activity, saying that’s a secret held among U.S. law-enforcement agencies. And if a clerk’s report isn’t sent to the Treasury Department, it still lingers for some time in the postal-service database. Gillum says that by law the postal service will not be able to destroy suspicious-activity reports for five years.
Gillum says the postal service is very strict that the reports only can be seen by law-enforcement officials and not used for other purposes such as marketing. A spokeswoman for the consulting company Information Builders stated in an e-mail to Insight, “Information Builders personnel do not have access to this system.”
Observers say problems with “Under the Eagle’s Eye” underscore the contradiction that despite the fact that the postal service advertises like a private business and largely is self-supporting, it still is a government agency with law-enforcement functions.
Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking, money orders. “Being a government agency, we feel it’s our responsibility that we should set the tone,” he said. The Treasury Department “basically challenged us in the mid-nineties to step up to the plate as a government entity,” Gillum adds.
In fact, Gillum thinks Treasury may mandate that the private sector follow some aspects of the postal-service’s program. He adds, however, that the postal service is not arguing for this to be imposed on its competitors.
In the meantime, the private sector is getting ready to comply with the Treasury regulations before they go into effect next January. But if 7-Eleven Inc., which through its franchises and company-owned stores is one of the largest sellers of money orders, is any guide, private vendors of money orders probably will not issue nearly as many suspicious-activity reports as the postal service. “‘Our philosophy is to follow what the regulations require, and if they don’t require us to fill out an SAR [suspicious-activity report] ….. then we wouldn’t necessarily do it,” 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris tells Insight. Asked specifically about customers who cancel or change a transaction when asked to fill out a form, Chabris said, “We are not required to fill out an SAR if that happens.” So why does the U.S. Postal Service?
That’s one of the major issues raised by critics such as Postal Watch’s Merritt. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as “Under the Eagle’s Eye” before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. “Let’s hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I don’t think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagle’s eye,” as he says.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 21st, 2001
<br />
Faith Based Initiatives<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Foods are not Drugs Act, a constitutional and common sense piece of legislation. This bill stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health.
The Foods are not Drugs Act accomplishes its goal by simply adding the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug.” This allows food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. For example, in 1998, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpul product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Foods are not Drugs Act ends this breakfast table censorship.
The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers’ first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency.
Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Foods are not Drugs Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 13th, 2001
<br />
Intervention in Sudan<br />
Mr. Speaker, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, in continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to police the world. It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures such as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seemingly is lost on this Congress.
Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18, which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the “necessary and proper” clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws necessary and proper to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such foregoing authority is cited by the advocates of this bill.
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says " compel .. good faith peace"] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self- righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions (again with no constitutional authority to regulate campaigns) yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.
The legislative “tools” to be used to “facilitate” this aforementioned “comprehensive solution” are as frightening as the nation-building tactics. For example, “It is the sense of the Congress that… the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan.” One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “Those exemplars of human rights nations… Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.”
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating “the nature and extent of… commercial activity in Sudan” as it relates to “any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.” It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors (read: retirees) despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agency’s previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.
There is more, however. Buried deep within the bill in Section 9 we find what may be the real motivation for the intervention — OIL. It seems the bill also tasks the Secretary of State with generating a report detailing “a description of the sources and current status of Sudan’s financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation, the effects of such financing and construction on the inhabitants of the regions in which the oil fields are located.” Talk about corporate welfare and the ability to socialize the costs of foreign competitive market research on the U.S. taxpayer!
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill truly has it all — an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts?!
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for the each of above-mentioned reasons and leave to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best render help to citizens of Sudan and all countries where human rights violations run rampant.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 13th, 2001
<br />
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article “Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription” by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro’s Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.
Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modem military require career professionals with long-term commitments to the service, not short-term draftees eager to “serve their time” and return to civilian life. The military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful military function. In 1993), the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on a system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen’s article then cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon.
TURNING EIGHTEEN IN AMERICA: THOUGHTS ON CONSCRIPTION
(By Michael R. Allen)
In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) proposed legislation that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.
This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed. The dovish Hatfield’s arguments in promotion of the bill constituted what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency.
This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted “living Constitution” makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.
Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army–assuming the country needs any army at all–will yield those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the nation for as long as they need.
Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians.
Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men.
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.
It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.
Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of America has not bought–bought off, tricked and fooled, yes–any of her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, emergency readiness, and social outcome.
Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 1980 US News and World Report article that “Middle and upper-class America are not sufficiently participating in the defense of the country today except in the officer corp. That’s one of the tragedies of the volunteer force …..”
Nunn’s provocative statement is not only designed to evoke resentment towards the “privileged” upper classes, it is also not sound from a practical point of view. Certainly, the classes with a statistically higher amount of college education should be involved in positions in which education can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn argument involves some sort of “duty” the upper classes have to live the life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a feeble attempt at egalitarian blurring of class distinction.
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them.
AMERICORPS
There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government.
Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called “Social Security,” he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft.
As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government’s powers, the Selective Service System/AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 13th, 2001
<br />
Faith Based Initiatives<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, “The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative” by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith.
If religious organizations receive taxpayer monies, they will have an incentive to make obedience to the dictates of federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to avoid displeasing their new federal paymaster. This will occur in large part because people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations will assume they “gave at the (tax) office” and thus will reduce their level of private giving. Thus, religious charities will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune” federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of “faith-based” programs.
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that funding religious organization will increase federal control of religious programs; in fact the current proposal explicitly forbids proselytizing in federally-funded “faith-based” programs. While religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a cross on its wall or a Jewish day center to hang a Star of David on its’ door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols.
Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read Miss Parker’s article and join her in supporting a return to a constitutional policy that does not put faith in federal programs but instead in the voluntary actions of a free and compassionate people.
[From GOPUSA.COM, May 25, 2001]
THE REAL THREAT OF THE FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE
(By Star Parker)
The faith-based initiative is our latest proof that politicians are great entrepreneurs in finding ways to expand the scope of government, their own power and control over our lives. This particular initiative should be of concern to all because, in the best scenario, it will only waste money. In the worst case, however, it will be destructive to our nation.
Although for President Bush this initiative is a crusade to reach minorities, welfare programs have already done enough damage in black America. Government dependency has created an environment in which black illegitimacy rates have soared seventy percent. This time the victim of government intervention will be the black church.
However, there is an even deeper concern facing us than this.
Those who claim that the faith-based initiative merely saves charitable programs of religious organizations from discrimination miss the most basic point. The main reason faith-based programs are successful is the fact that free people choose to fund them and that free people choose to participate in them.
The truth is that we all are already participating in a great faith-based initiative. It is called the United States of America and its principles and rules are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights.
It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society.
Our goal should be to eliminate government from those aspects of our society that have been politicized: not to politicize the very faith and freedom that have made our country great. The very idea of welfare is the antithesis of both faith and freedom.
A true faith-based initiative is one defined by freedom and not one defined by politics. Humankind already has a tragic history of incidents where governments and politicians have gotten into the business of defining faith and religion.
I respect our President, but he is dead wrong on this one. We still have billions of unused dollars in our welfare budgets. Let us return these funds to our citizens and exercise true faith that they will make the right decisions regarding charitable giving. Let us remember the simple wisdom of Ronald Reagan that government is the problem, not the solution.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 11th, 2001
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Texas Gulf coast Congressmen Ron Paul and Solomon P. Ortiz organized a meeting last week between South Texas shrimpers and federal Transportation secretary Norman Mineta to discuss onerous immigration requirements that prevent adequate crewing of boats. Mineta promised Paul and the shrimpers that the Coast Guard (which enforces federal fishery regulations) is working on a temporary waiver process to help with crewing for the July opening of the fishery. The Guard also is working on a permanent waiver process.
I’m pleased that Secretary Mineta is open to relaxing these harmful regulations,” Paul stated. “When shrimpers cannot hire adequate crews, the whole industry suffers. My hope is that temporary waivers can be granted by July.”
Currently, federal regulations require that 75% of shrimping crews be citizens or permanent legal residents. The Coast Guard has been strictly enforcing the 75% rule, leaving shrimpers able to hire only limited temporary workers.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 6th, 2001
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul has been named a “Treasury Guardian” by a leading Congressional watchdog organization. Taxpayers for Common Sense Action (TCS), a national nonpartisan advocate for taxpayers, recently released its annual Common Sense Taxpayer Scorecard. Congressman Paul scored first among 435 members of Congress for his fiscally responsible voting record in 2000!
“Congress has two distinct choices,” stated Jill Lancelot, Legislative Director for TCS. “It can either continue down the usual path of wasteful spending, or it can get serious about balancing its books. There are some exceptional members of Congress like Ron Paul looking out for the taxpayer’s money. Unfortunately, politics too often trumps common sense when it comes to spending tax dollars.”
The TCS scorecard evaluates dozens of spending and tax votes that have a significant impact on federal taxpayers. The votes cover a broad variety of categories, including budget issues, subsidies, public lands, public works, and taxes. Only those lawmakers who score in the top 10% of their respective chambers by casting fiscally responsible votes are recognized as “Treasury Guardians.”
“Congress exceeded spending limits mandated by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act by $50 billion in the 2000 budget,” Lancelot continued. “For 2001, lawmakers have spent $100 billion more than is allowed by the law.”
“The need for spending restraint has never been greater,” Congressman Paul stated. “My approach is simple: I always vote against spending increases. I’m grateful to TCS for choosing to reward the effort of those few in Congress who stand opposed to pork-barrel politics.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: