Pillars of Prosperity phần 10 ppt

The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives October 8, 2002 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financ- ing Fairness Act. This bill aids America’s struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry’s major foreign competitors. The United States’ domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restau- rants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad. Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by-catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The manda- tory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share. Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fish- eries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeas- ure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency recently held briefings with 424 Pillars of Prosperity House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency’s actions are harming shrimpers. However, even after hearing firsthand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry. Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabili- ties. These countries have each exported in excess of 20 million pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first six months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period! Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States government has provided more than $1.8 billion in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Eximbank totals some $14.8 billion. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16.5 billion to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economies. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indi- rectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibil- ity of money. Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 425 In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Eximbank and OPIC subsidies to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contri- bution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufac- tured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.  Oppose the Federal Welfare State Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives February 13, 2003 Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protect- ing civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfor- tunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Fam- ily Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family. 426 Pillars of Prosperity H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Fami- lies (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More impor- tantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor. H.R. 4 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation con- cern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help welfare recipients obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size- fits-all’’ approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to- work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to- work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the states at a time when many are facing a fiscal crisis. As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura pointed out in ref- erence to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 427 put our system at risk?’’ Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work? Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing approximately $10 million dollars for new “marriage promotion’’ programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an OB-GYN with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent fami- lies to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep- rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the Ameri- can family. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty. H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone law- fully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens. As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, 428 Pillars of Prosperity the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” How- ever, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foun- dation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organiza- tions, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function. Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.” Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the Founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.’’ Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-inter- est of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding. In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 429 the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.  Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives March 25, 2004 Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25 percent, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends $2.4 trillion in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large. Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free 430 Pillars of Prosperity country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the depart- ments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon princi- ple and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not? It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected. I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.” In Washing- ton, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3 percent, while Democrats seek 6 percent growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it. Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is catego- rized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Con- gress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend $1.5 trillion funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable. The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow—budget and tax bills Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 431 are completely separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year. Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory. The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable—Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interven- tionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bank- rupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.  A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives June 24, 2004 Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Sen- ate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to 432 Pillars of Prosperity brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for H.R. 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less constitutional government? Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill’s spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international or military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-her- alded “surpluses” of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservatism in Washington, D.C. The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 433 [...]... Depression, 42 end of, 360 Federal Reserve as cause of, 236 American dream, conflicting visions of the, 381 American Federation of Labor, on legal tender laws, 232 Amin, Idi, inflation under, 103 Argentina, economic crisis of, 353–54 Austrian School, subjective theory of value of, 52 authoritarianism alternatives to, 12 deception of, 13 automobile industry, 305 bailouts of Chrysler, 393–97 of companies,... from being a sign of the health of capitalism, excessive CEO salaries in these areas often signal that a bubble is about to burst When a bubble bursts, people at the bottom of the economic ladder bear the brunt of the bust Instead of imposing new laws on private companies, Congress should repeal the laws that have weakened the ability of shareholders to discipline CEOs and boards of directors that... reaching a height of 100 km (62 miles) above the Earth’s surface Remarkably, SpaceShipOne is entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft cofounder Paul G Allen According to the designers and financers of SpaceShipOne, the mission of this project is to demonstrate the viability of commercial space flight and to open the door for private space tourism The successful completion of SpaceShipOne’s... unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to 450 Pillars of Prosperity our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy—in spite of the incessant... part of Members of Congress Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 435 Praising Private Space Exploration Congressional Record—U.S House of Representatives June 25, 2004 Mr Speaker, I rise to congratulate and commend the designers, builders, sponsors, and pilot of SpaceShipOne on the occasion of its successful flight out of earth’s atmosphere on June 21, 2004 What is most remarkable about SpaceShipOne, of. .. skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud: the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter My 444 Pillars of Prosperity colleagues also should keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting financial crimes Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley... companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent Spending, Taxes, and Regulations 443 Many of the major problems stem from Section 404 of SarbanesOxley, which requires Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial statements... to live within its 442 Pillars of Prosperity constitutional means Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley! Congressional Record—U.S House of Representatives April 14, 2005 Mr Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley... National Labor Relations Board NTB – Non-Tariff Trade Barrier NTR – normal trade relations OB-GYN – doctor of obstetrics and gynecology ODIHR – Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights OECD – Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Glossary of Acronyms OPEC – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries OPIC – Overseas Private Investment Corporation OSCE – Organization for Security... this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment for Democracy should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization 446 Pillars of Prosperity I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this legislation First, the extremely misleading UN “reform” act was slipped into this bill even though it was already . 130 percent. 442 Pillars of Prosperity Many of the major problems stem from Section 404 of Sarbanes- Oxley, which requires Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial statements morality and responsibility on the part of Members of Congress.  434 Pillars of Prosperity Praising Private Space Exploration Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives June 25, 2004 Mr without the federal government, 428 Pillars of Prosperity the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” How- ever, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foun- dation and others

Định dạng
Số trang	54
Dung lượng	443,51 KB