U.S. Representative Ron Paul

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar "emergency" spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.  Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well. 

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called "emergency" bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board--including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.  For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!  Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid - all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of "emergency" measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The "bipartisan" compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.  Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week. However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18 percent according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.  Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

Posted in Unspecified | 2 Comments | Permalink

The House passed two bills attempting to rehabilitate the housing and mortgage market this week.  There doesn't seem to be any shortage of criticism and blame for the bad decisions, and rightly so.  Lenders and banks do share much of the blame for the overheated market.  Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever.  Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering. 

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place.  The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers.  People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.  But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly.  Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces.  This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.

These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions.  One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure.  HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes.  Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills.  It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.

The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some.  We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them.  It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future.  Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows - by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer.  The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.

Posted in Unspecified | 3 Comments | Permalink

In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline.  For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.

Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold.

Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits.  It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.

Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.

The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.

Posted in Unspecified | 1 Comments | Permalink

K.K. Forss does not claim medical marijuana solves all his problems.  His pain from a ruptured disc in his neck is debilitating.  He is unable to go to work or to the First Baptist Church he used to attend because of the pain and muscle spasms.  Taxpayers through Medicare spend over $18,000 a year on his various medications.  Half of those drugs are strong narcotics.  The other half address the various side-effects brought on by the first half, such as nausea, heartburn, heart palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and muscle spasms. 

No, marijuana would not completely address all his pain, but it made a tremendous difference in the quality of his life when he tried it for over a year.  It helped him regain 38 pounds he had lost.  It calmed his muscle spasms and helped him sleep. In short, it alleviated many side effects and greatly reduced his need for other expensive medications.  Mr. Forss estimates that being allowed to use medical marijuana would save taxpayers at least $12,000 a year in medications he would no longer need.  He would also be able to work occasionally and attend some church services.

Scientists at the University of California at Davis recently completed a study that backs up Mr. Forss’s experience, finding that cannabis demonstrates significant relief of neuropathic pain.  Many in government call for more studies while people like K.K. Forss suffer.  More studies will not change what many patients already know, and that is for some, medical marijuana helps their pain.  But over-reaching government gets in the way.

K.K. Forss lived in constant fear of federal and state officials so he eventually stopped taking medical marijuana and switched to his more rigorous and expensive pill regimen.  Presently, twelve states have passed legislation allowing marijuana, under certain conditions, to be prescribed legally by doctors for patients who could benefit from it.  K.K. Forss lives in Minnesota, where it is not yet legal.  However, even if it is legalized by the state, Mr. Forss will still have plenty to fear from the Federal government, as cannabis dispensaries and clinics that operate under these state laws are still under fire from the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

In other words, the federal government sees fit to use our tax dollars to raid state sanctioned healthcare clinics, to imprison and fine patients and operators, in order to compel people like Mr. Forss to be bedridden and overmedicated at great taxpayer expense every single day.

The Federal government should recognize that states have the authority to decide these issues.  This affords all states the opportunity to see which policies are most beneficial. As a Congressman and a physician, I strongly advocate that healthcare decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not politicians or federal agents, which is why I am an original co-sponsor of the recently introduced “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” which would bar the Federal government from intervening in such doctor/patient relationships that violate no state law.

The bottom line is that K.K. Forss should be treated as a free American.  Mr. Forss is one of many who would like to use marijuana medicinally because it helps him.  Politicians and bureaucrats have no right to interfere.

Posted in Unspecified | 3 Comments | Permalink