|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 4, No. 6 AUGUST 2000
Editors Note: This edition of the Freedom Report contains arguments on issues of
vital importance to individual liberty that we have not been able to reprint before.
The first item details Rep. Paul's major victory for personal privacy.
[TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000]
MEDICAL PRIVACY AMENDMENT
Dr. Paul wins a victory for privacy rights!
Dr. Paul offers an amendment to the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill to protect
individual privacy and stop the issuance of a Universal Medical Identification Number.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the funds in this appropriation can be used for implementing a uniform medical identifier. It is a privacy amendment. ...[I]t would be a good idea to have it in this year's bill.
...[A]uthority [to implement a universal medical identifier] was granted in the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 and it was designed to establish a medical data bank. But because many, on both sides of the aisle, have objected to the invasion of privacy of setting up a medical data bank, there has been some resistance to this.
Although the removal of the authority would be the proper way to solve this problem once and for all, in lieu of that, it would be very appropriate to continue the policy of not permitting any Federal funding to be spent on developing this universal medical identifier - which by all indications would be our Social Security numbers.
Many people object to this invasion of privacy. They do not place full trust in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Government to protect our privacy. [Although others] say that this would not be an invasion of privacy and there would be some strict rules and regulations about how this medical information would be used, that is not enough reassurance.
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues that this form of invasion of our medical privacy will not serve us well in medical care. What it will lead to is incomplete and inaccurate medical records, because it will become known to the patient as well as the physician that once this information is accumulated, it might fall into the hands of the politicians and be used for reasons other than for medical care. That could damage medical care. Medical care would be endangered by having a medical data bank set up.
The American people have spoken out strongly in recent years about invasion of their privacy. There was a proposal to implement "know-your-customer" bank regulations. These [regulations] were soundly rejected by the people, and I think that this same sentiment applies to the medical data bank. Also, efforts to establish a national identification card ... have not met with a great deal of acceptance with the American people.
So my effort here, in limiting this development of a universal medical identifier, is to keep the Federal Government out of this business. It is too easy for abuse of this type of information to occur. We have heard that the various administrations over the years have abused records kept in the IRS as well as the FBI. This would just be [one more] source of information that individuals could use in a negative fashion.
I believe it is a fallacy for those who promote the setting up of a universal medical identifier and a universal medical data bank [to call] it an effort to simplify the process - to streamline the system, to make government more efficient, to facilitate medical research. It has also been said this could be used in law enforcement, but just think about this. If these records can be turned over without the approval of the patient to law enforcement, it really, quite clearly, is a violation of the fifth amendment [which protects against] self-incrimination. So this idea that this medical bank might be beneficial for law enforcement is rather scary and something that we should prevent.
Already, under authority that was given to Health and Human Services, they have started to draw up regulations which regulate privacy matters, not so much the medical data bank but in other areas. The other thing that concerns me a great deal is these medical regulations that have been proposed not only deal with the privacy of somebody that may be receiving medical care from Medicare but also in the private sector.
(House Amendment 787 - the Paul Amendment to H.R. 4577, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill - was agreed to by voice vote on June 13, 2000.)
[TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000 ]
THE DOLLAR AND OUR CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT
"Raising our Standard of Living on Borrowed Money"
Dr. Paul addresses the House:
Fiat money, that is, money created out of thin air, causes numerous problems, internationally as well as domesticly. It causes domestic price inflation, economic downturns, unemployment, excessive debt, (corporate, personal and government) mal-investment, and over-capacity - all of which are very serious and poorly understood by our officials. But fluctuating values of various paper currencies cause all kinds of disruptions in international trade and finance as well.
When sound-money conditions exist, trade surpluses and deficits are of little concern, since they prompt changes in policy or price adjustments in a natural or smooth manner. However, when currencies are non-convertible into something of real value (like gold, for instance), they can be arbitrarily increased at will, and under those circumstances trade deficits, and especially current account deficits, are of much greater significance.
When trade imbalances are not corrected, sudden devaluations, higher interest rates, and domestic inflation are forced on the country that has most abused its monetary power. This was seen in 1997 in the Asian crisis, and precarious economic conditions continue in that region.
Japan has yet to recover from its monetary inflation of the 70s and 80s and has now suffered with a lethargic economy for over a decade. Even after this length of time, there is no serious thought for currency reform in Japan or any other Asian nation.
Although international trade imbalances are a predictable result of fiat money, the duration and intensity of the cycles associated with it are not. A reserve currency, such as the dollar, is treated by the market quite differently than other fiat currencies.
The issuer of a reserve currency - in this case, the United States - has greater latitude for inflating and can tolerate a current account deficit for much longer periods of time than other countries not enjoying the same [reserve-currency] benefit. But although at times it may seem lax, economic law is ruthless in always demanding that economic imbalances arising from abuse of economic principles be rectified. In spite of the benefits that reserve-currency countries enjoy, financial bubbles still occur and their prolongation, for whatever reason, only means the inevitable adjustment, when it comes, is more harsh.
Our current state of imbalance includes a huge US/foreign debt of $1.5 trillion - a record 20% of GDP - and is a consequence of our continuously running a huge monthly current-account deficit that shows no signs of soon abating. We are now the world's greatest debtor. The consequence of this deficit cannot be avoided. Our current-account deficit has continued longer than many would have expected, but not knowing how long and to what extent deficits can go is not unusual. The precise event that starts the reversal in the trade balance is also unpredictable. The reversal itself is not.
Japan's lethargy, the Asian crisis, the Mexican financial crisis, Europe's weakness, the uncertainty surrounding the EURO, the demise of the Soviet system, and the ineptness of the Russian bailout, all contributed to the continued strength in the dollar and prolongation of our current-account deficit. This current-account deficit, which prompts foreigners to loan back dollars to us and to invest in our stock and bond markets, has contributed significantly to the financial bubble. The perception that the United States is the economic and military powerhouse of the world helps perpetuate an illusion that the dollar is invincible, and this has encouraged our inflationary policies.
By inflating our currency, we can then spend our dollars overseas, getting products at good prices which, on the short run, raises our standard of living - but, on borrowed money. All current-account deficits must be financed by borrowing from abroad.
It all ends when the world wakes up and realizes it has been had by the US printing press. No country can expect to inflate its currency at will forever.
Since cartels never work, OPEC does not deserve credit for getting oil prices above $30 per barrel. Demand for equivalent purchasing power for the sale of oil does. Recent commodity and wage price increases signal accelerating price inflation at hand. We are witnessing the early stages in a sea change regarding the dollar, inflation, and the stock market, as well as commodity prices.
The nervousness in the stock and bond markets, and especially in the NASDAQ, indicates that the Congress may soon be facing an entirely different set of financial numbers regarding spending, revenues, interest costs on our national debt, and the value of the U.S. dollar. Price inflation of the conventional type will surely return, even if the economy slows.
Fiscal policy and current monetary policy will not solve the crisis we will soon face. Only sound money - money that cannot be created out of thin air - can solve the many problems appearing on the horizon. The sooner we pay attention to monetary policy as the source of our international financial problems, the sooner we will come up with a sound solution.
[MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000 ]
IN DEFENSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor [The Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act].
There is a lot of emphasis around here on the First Amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect of the Second Amendment, [despite the fact that] a lot of Americans believe that the Second Amendment is equally as important as the First Amendment.
So I congratulate the gentleman ... and I rise in strong support of the Hostettler Amendment.
The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating a three-fold system of government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.
It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and the judicial branch for interpreting them, period.
A serious act of misconduct by the administration occurred when the Smith & Wesson agreement was settled: the executive branch acted as the legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of litigation. That egregious agreement:
1. Will reguire all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days, regardless of make;
2. Will require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of any firearm;
3. Will mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight commission created by the settlement agreement; and,
4. Does not allow unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present.
It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company whom they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.
The agreement makes the BATF - which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun owners - an integral part of the commission that has oversight of gun owners. The BATF will require all employees of dealers to attend annual training courses, and in these training courses, the BATF will give the final say as to what can be taught and what will be excluded. Each employee must also complete an examination, the content of which will be closely reviewed by the oversight commission, which can make its own changes as it sees fit. In essence, they are acting as the thought-control police. This sounds very Orwellian to me and far from what Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, The great objective is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.
Let us not forget past calamities that befell U.S. citizens at the hands of over-zealous federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies, and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress.
Members of the House, you must remember the oath you swore to uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer.
By what authority does the administration set up this new commission? What check will be placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in these changes? Why should we hand over our authority to another branch of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our citizens?
These [infringements of Second-Amendment rights] have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate, and thus far, have not passed either house. It is all too clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-Second Amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply [with restrictions] regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business - and no authority - to mandate how a company runs its business.
Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. Stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and vote for the Hostettler Amendment, and also, support H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.
I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that we can pass this overwhelmingly.
(House Amendment 905 - the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 4690 - failed by a vote of 196 to 201 on June 26, 2000.)
[WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 ]
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS (with China)
[Editor's Note: Although PNTR is by now a familiar topic, this important address by Dr. Paul
is a gentleman's indictment of business as usual in our nation's capitol.]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, the legislation which would have implemented "permanent normal trade relations" with the People's Republic of China was 3 pages in length - today, it is 66 pages in length.
Close examination of this bill gone bad [shows] how this Congress misdefines "free trade" and how, like most everything else in Washington, this "free-trade" bill is a misnomer of significant proportions.
For the past several years, I have favored normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. Because of certain misconceptions, it is useful to begin with some detail about what normal trade-relations status is and what it is not. Previous normal trade relations (NTR) votes meant only that U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese goods will be no different than tariffs imposed on other countries for similar products - period. [In the past...]
1. NTR status did not mean more U.S. taxpayers dollars sent to China.
2. It did not signify more international family planning dollars sent overseas.
3. NTR status did not mean automatic access to the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, OPIC, or any number of other foreign-aid vehicles by which the U.S. Congress sends foreign aid to a large number of countries.
Rather, NTR status was the lowering of a United States citizen's taxes paid on voluntary exchanges entered into with citizens who happen to reside in different countries. Of course, many critics of NTR status for China do not address the free-trade issue or the necessarily negative economic consequences of their position.
No one should question that individual rights are vital to liberty and that the communist government of China has an abysmal record in that department. At the same time, basic human rights must necessarily include the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with others. To burden the U.S. citizens who enter into voluntary exchanges with exorbitant taxes (tariffs) in the name of protecting the human rights of citizens of other countries would be [contradictory]. Trade barriers when lowered ... benefit consumers who can purchase goods more cheaply than previously available.
Individuals choosing not to trade with citizens of particular foreign [countries] are not threatened by lower[ed] barriers for those who do. Oftentimes, critics focus instead on human-rights deprivation by government leaders in China and see trade barriers as a means to reform these sometimes tyrannical leaders. However, according to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest [president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty] who discussed this topic in the Wall Street Journal, American missionaries in China favor NTR status and see this as the policy most likely to bring about positive change in China.
But all of this said, this new 66 page free trade bill is not about free trade at all. It is about empowering and enriching international trade regulators and quasi-governmental entities on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. Like NAFTA before [it], this bill contains provisions which continue our country down the ugly path of internationally engineered managed trade, rather than that of free trade.
As explained by Ph.D. economist Murray N. Rothbard: [G]enuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a 'trade agreement'; NAFTA was 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 is necessary.
In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of free trade fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the merchantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of 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 [provide] privilege to the government-business elite at the expense of all consumers, [whether] domestic or foreign.
This new PNTR bill, rather than lowering government-imposed barriers to trade, has become a legislative vehicle under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy.
No, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don't be fooled into thinking this bill is about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should be disgraced to learn that, among other things, this bill:
1. Further undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization on the backs of American taxpayers;
2. Sends federal employees to Beijing to become lobbyists to [persuade] members of [that] communist government to become more WTO-friendly;
3. Funds the imposition of the questionable Universal Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments; and,
4. Authorizes the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free Asia.
Mr. Speaker, I say no to this taxpayer-financed fanfare of free trade which fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange and urge my colleagues to do the same.
(H.R. 444 authorizing an extension of normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China was passed by a vote of 237 to 197 on May 24, 2000.)
|
