[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H612-H616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are not happy with the 
direction in which this country is going nor with the efforts that 
Congress has made to solve our problems.
  By superficial analysis and as measured by Government statistics, our 
leaders would have us believe that the state of the union is strong. 
Yet with casual observation, one detects smoldering discontent among 
the people. In looking for solutions, Congress engages in political 
grandstanding that produces few answers for that growing number of 
Americans not confident about their future. Even many of those who are 
who are well off worry that their own futures, and certainly their 
children's futures, are not secure.
  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that throughout the world, 1.5 billion 
people live in deep poverty. These are not just people in developing 
countries, but some even live here in the United States. They do not go 
unnoticed and contribute to the anxiety of the times. Approximately 3 
million children in this country are abused each year, and this does 
not count abortion.
  Violent crime in the United States is a serious problem, with killers 
getting younger every year. From 1965 to 1992 the number of murders 
doubled while the percentage of murders solved has fallen.
  For many Americans, the standard of living has dropped over the past 
25 years. Nominal wages have soared but real income has fallen for low- 
and middle-income families due to dollar appreciation. Even with two 
family members working, keeping up has been difficult. Less parental 
supervision has contributed to the juvenile crime problem.
  Generational conflicts are real. The demands of the elderly seem 
endless. Knowing that they have a greater tax burden to bear and 
expecting no returns at retirement frustrates the under-40 taxpayer. 
This resentment is not likely to fade any time soon, and will likely 
get worse.
  Confidence in the future is far from robust. The balanced budget 
amendment, the line-item veto, term limits; they will not solve our 
economic and social problems. Cynicism flourishes throughout the land 
and especially here in the Congress. Frustration over how to solve our 
problems has led to rude behavior that once was rare in the House. 
Civility classes only address the symptoms and will not solve the 
philosophic conflicts nor address the economic limitations that are the 
source of the impasse the welfare state now encounters.
  The radical political correctness movement undermines the first 
amendment and contributes to the anger expressed by various groups. 
Intimidation and ridicule of unpopular ideas are hardly a way to bring 
different social groups together. The same individuals that demand 
censures of those who do not use politically correct language condemn 
voluntary prayer as a violation of the first amendment. A consistent 
position on free speech will go a long way toward softening the growing 
resentment that strains our relationships with each other.
  Our welfare state is now broke. We cannot meet our future 
obligations, now estimated to be over $17 trillion. We must one day 
admit this fact. There are just not enough young victims left to tax to 
continue the process. We can and are limping along by continuing to rob 
Peter to pay Paul. This can last for a while longer but eventually we 
will have to admit that borrowing, taxing and inflating will not 
suffice.
  These techniques pursued over the past 60 years cannot replace 
working, producing, saving, investing as the real source of wealth and 
prosperity. Government is incapable of producing wealth. Productivity 
growth, according to the Wall Street Journal, is now .3 percent per 
year. This is similar to pre-industrial revolution days. If this 
continues, it will take 10 generations for a person to double one's 
income.
  Inflation has eaten away at the seemingly huge welfare payments that 
we no longer can afford. The average welfare check in 1970 was worth 
twice that of 1996.
  More of the same, though, cannot address the problem of productivity 
and savings. Only good economic policy and sound political theory can 
do that.
  We must realize we are not yet facing what other western developed 
nations are. Japan is in the doldrums, and even interest rates of less 
than 1 percent have not revitalized their economy. Where will they be 
when the United States quits buying Japanese products in our next 
recession? France and Germany are further ahead than we are in

[[Page H613]]

confronting the failure of the welfare state. Germany admits to an 
unemployment rate of more than 12 percent, the highest since the 
Depression. French unemployment is over 10 percent.

  The U.S. will not be able to meet its welfare needs while continuing 
to keep Europe and Japan afloat by our extravagant purchases from them. 
That will come to an end in one way or another. A new European currency 
will not address the basic flaws of the welfare state.
  The central banks of Europe are selling off gold to raise cash to 
appear financially strong enough to enter the European currency union. 
This schizophrenic attitude prevails in all the world's central banks. 
The whole plan for a universal European fiat currency is a nonstarter, 
and its failure will eventually put more pressure on us to address the 
entire issue of our welfare system.
  Corporate downsizing has compensated remarkably for the ills of 
malinvestment inherent in a fiat monetary system. It has eliminated 
many good jobs while temporarily improving corporate earnings. Not only 
have good jobs been lost, downsizing has created an atmosphere of 
distrust and fear of the economic future unlike anything we have ever 
experienced.
  Stockholders have benefitted by inflated stock prices, but those 
individuals interested in dividends are now receiving an historic low 
return of less than 2 percent. Today's stock and bond market valuations 
are not a reflection of a healthy capitalist society, but reflect the 
excesses inherent in a welfare state financed by Government borrowing 
and the Federal Reserve credit creation system. Evidence is readily 
available that the inevitable decline of the middle class that comes 
from depreciating a currency to finance welfare is already here.
  There is no reason to expect reversal of this trend without major 
policy changes. Block grants to the States hardly offer the solution to 
a failed welfare state.
  The principle that underpins the welfare state must be challenged. 
Anything short of that will cause the demise of welfare to smolder for 
decades, with the offer of more poverty to many more Americans. Under 
those circumstances, the role and the size of the Government will 
continue to grow, despite the current favorable rhetoric. In 
recessions, expanding welfare is irresistible, and the next one will be 
no different. There is a growing consensus that something is seriously 
wrong with our economy and political system, and that is a start.
  Too often, though, answers are given before the right questions are 
asked. Fixing the current system occupies the attention of those 
sincerely worried about the future welfare of the country. Budget, tax, 
education, regulatory reforms are promoted as solutions to our mess. 
Rarely do we hear that the system itself is flawed and the unintended 
consequences were not at all unexpected.
  The collapse of the Soviet-styled socialism would have hardly 
surprised the late great Austrian economist Mises, since he predicted 
its failure.
  The line-item veto, heralded by many as a tool needed to rein in 
spending, will prove the opposite, while, unfortunately, delivering 
more power to the executive branch of Government.
  Technical gimmicks outside a philosophic approach to Government will 
not solve problems, even if well-intended.
  Deceptively recalculating the CPI to cut spending and raise taxes 
will only fuel the conflict already present between the generations. It 
is true that the standard of living must go down as we confront our 
bankruptcy. Straightforward tax increases and benefit cuts will never 
be acceptable for political reasons. Even this back-door attempt to 
raise taxes and lower benefits through an arbitrary recalculation of 
the CPI will probably not fly once the entitlement recipients realize 
what is happening. Real benefits however will go down through dollar 
depreciation. The checks will continue but inflation, that evil 
declared dead by our money managers, will eat up purchasing power 
faster than even the COLA's can keep pace. If the CPI is not 
recalculated soon, it will not happen later since the people will rebel 
against the Government's rhetoric claiming inflation is essentially 
nonexistent.
  It is a losing battle. The cost of Government is growing 3 times 
faster than the CPI and now takes more than 40 percent of our income, 
and of course it is not even counted in the CPI. No wonder the people 
are more upset than the Government thinks they should be considering a 
subdued CPI, high employment and a soaring stock market. No sales tax, 
flat tax, value-added tax, lower capital gains tax, or even dynamic 
scoring will bring about the miracle that will allow the immoral 
redistribution of wealth inherent in a welfare system to persist 
without a serious attack on our standard of living and our personal 
freedoms.

  A tremendous amount of energy has been put into the balanced budget 
amendment movement. The whole balanced budget amendment debate has 
served perversely to distract from the important and key issue of the 
level of Government expenditures. A balanced budget achieved at $1.7 
trillion offers no benefit whatsoever and a great deal of harm compared 
to a trillion dollar budget out of balance.
  This whole debate over the balanced budget amendment has co-opted the 
important issue of the proper size of Government. The deficits have 
exploded ever since welfare benefits became equivalent to an 
entitlement and a right. Removing any restraint on the Federal Reserve 
to monetize the debt, by severing the last link of the dollar to gold, 
was not a coincidence and conveniently accommodated congressional 
deficit spending. It was necessary to delay the inherently failed 
financing that must always accompany a welfare state.
  Dwelling on changing the Constitution to make Congress act 
responsibly begs the question: If Congress ignores the Constitution in 
so many other ways, why would one expect Congress to become obedient to 
this one new amendment? The escape clauses will permit the deficits to 
continue if the amendment passes. With or without the amendment, we are 
still forced eventually to ask the serious question as to what the 
Government is permitted to do if we return to the rule of law. That is 
the Constitution. Without respect for the doctrine of enumerated 
powers, for which there is currently little concern in the Congress, 
another constitutional restraint placed on Congress will do little more 
than pacify a few vocal groups. If we use Social Security funds to 
balance the budget, the support for this project will quickly fade.
  The deficit problem is a lot more than an accounting problem. 
Balancing the books, or pretending to do so, will not solve the 
problems inherent in a welfare state manipulated by a majority vote to 
the benefit of the special interests. Tax changes, budget compromises, 
borrowing and inflating all help in buying time for a withering welfare 
state.

                              {time}  1615

  A wealthy country like the United States can survive for a long 
period of time with adjustments of this sort. Freedom creates great 
prosperity and trust. Our credit is still good, the dollar is trusted 
and there is still plenty of wealth to redistribute. Many Americans are 
still willing to sacrifice even more of their freedoms for the promise 
of Government benevolence, but even wealthy countries go bankrupt if 
they continue to hinder their productive capacity.
  Our Tax Code encourages exporting of capital, our regulatory system 
sends businesses overseas, and our corporate welfare state subsidizes 
overseas investments over domestic ones. At the same time, we welcome 
millions of illegal immigrants with free health care, education and 
housing. None of this makes sense. It only drives us more quickly to 
the day of reckoning. My guess is that that day is not far off and that 
we have in real terms consumed a lot of our capital and sacrificed many 
of our freedoms.
  The concept of complete self-reliance and personal responsibility 
absent of Government programs is foreign to most Americans. Individual 
bankruptcy is preceded by a call from a banker refusing the next loan 
to pay for the last one. Suddenly, conditions change and that 
individual accustomed to a high standard of living paid for with 
borrowed money has a sharp setback to his standard of living. A nation

[[Page H614]]

never gets that call from a banker, since it serves as its own banker. 
The crisis comes when confidence is lost in the money. Confidence may 
erode gradually, but dramatic changes will also occur.
  We saw signs of things to come with the breakdown of the Bretton 
Woods agreement when gold was still $35 an ounce. Again, confidence was 
shaken in the dollar in 1979 when gold shot up to $800 an ounce. The 
Mexican devaluation demonstrated how chronic currency debasement leads 
to sudden and painful adjustments, always hurting the innocent poor 
while the politicians and the bankers escape unscathed.
  For good reasons, the Mexican people did not celebrate the so-called 
early payback to the United States of the loans made 2 years ago. The 
peasants suffer while the bankers and their political allies brag of 
great deeds never performed. Much of the time, gold for the U.S. 
economy was bought at the expense of the U.S. dollar.
  Our $17 trillion obligations to the welfare recipients of the future 
and the dollars sent overseas for the past decade or so have allowed us 
to become the largest foreign debtor in the history of the world. Our 
foreign debt is now more than $1 trillion. Foreign central banks, at 
the urging of our own Treasury Department, are willing to accept our 
Treasury debt at a rate of over $100 billion per year. It may help the 
dollar on the short run, but eventually those dollars will return in 
spite of central bank collusion to keep the system afloat.
  Foreign central banks are willing, for now, to soak up our inflated 
dollars, allowing us to export our inflation and live beyond our means. 
They do it since they need us to buy their products, because their own 
economies are internally weak. They cannot, however, become wealthy by 
selling us goods in return for our paper.
  Our temporarily strong dollar makes foreign purchases extremely 
attractive and produces our negative trade and current account balance. 
With the dollar holding its own, foreigners are willing to hold them as 
they gladly ring up paper profits with their sales to the United 
States. The fact that the dollar serves as the reserve currency of the 
world contributes to the confidence that otherwise would not be there 
if we were on an international gold standard.
  Our interest payments to foreigners is a major contributing item in 
our current account deficit. The amount is rising steadily as it 
compounds, just as our interest on our own $5.2 trillion national debt. 
The wonderful illusion of trust bestowed on the U.S. dollar allows us a 
standard of living far beyond anything we currently earn. It is such a 
good deal, we can be certain that our central bank money managers will 
do nothing to change it; economic law will. When is the only question. 
Our political party leaders are not even talking about it, but we in 
the Congress surely should.
  The 20th century has not been good for honoring standards. The 
Constitution has certainly suffered as a standard for our law. Respect 
for the doctrine of enumerated powers has been undermined by grotesque 
interstate commerce laws and general welfare clause interpretation that 
mocks the Founders' attempt to strictly limit Government power.
  Probably the most important standard lost in the 20th century has 
been that for life. Our laws permit men to become wealthy through 
killing the unborn any time prior to birth and yet we imprison and 
threaten youngsters who throw away their minute-old newborns with death 
sentences. The only debate is whether we should pay the abortionist or 
call the police if someone performs a partial birth abortion. If we are 
not able to set a standard for life any better than this, we cannot be 
optimistic about our future.
  Those who expressed concerns about this 20 years ago received 
ridicule when they suggested it would lead to euthanasia. Medical care 
is now an economic function of the state, and the current standards for 
life have deteriorated. I fear the trend for economic justification for 
killing the elderly and the infirm will continue.
  Without a strict adherence to a standard for life, we cannot expect 
much respect for liberty and property. Privacy seems to be a thing of 
the past, and confiscation of property without due process of law is a 
common, everyday occurrence.
  Since 1971, we have had no standard for our money, and in spite of 
the dollar's serving as the world reserve currency, it does so at great 
peril to all Americans. A monetary unit without definition, endlessly 
created by a secret central bank, will play havoc someday with the 
world financial system. Time will tell.

  The age of relative ethics and central planning of our entire 
educational system has produced a generation of youngsters unable to 
read or spell. More Goals 2000 will do nothing to help our children. 
Centralized control over education always enhances the power of the 
state and undermines liberty.
  One of the most important standards lost in this century has been 
that for liberty. The acceptance that liberty is composed of two 
separate elements, economic and personal, has done untold harm to our 
system. The fact that commercial speech receives no first amendment 
protection is baffling. Some of the best defenders of the first 
amendment are the greatest enemies of economic liberty and voluntary 
contracts. It is now strange to propose that voluntary economic 
transactions deserve the same protection under the law as personal, 
social, and religious associations. The divorce between economic and 
personal liberty must be reconciled if we ever expect to make a strong 
stand for a free society.
  The welfare ethic has replaced the work ethic. This applies to 
corporate America, middle-class America, and the poor. Respect for 
work, savings, and investments and no government hindrance is required 
to have once again strong economic growth and a rising standard of 
living for all Americans.
  Centralizing power and consistently expanding the role of the 
Government require an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon 
which a police state thrives. There are over 100 laws on the books 
permitting private property seizure without due process of law. We have 
made it easy to seize any property by absurdly claiming the property 
itself committed the crime. The RICO mentality relating to law 
enforcement permits even the casual bystander to suffer severely from 
the police state mentality.
  The drug war hysteria and the war on gun ownership started by 
Roosevelt in 1934 have expanded Federal police power to the point that 
more than 10 percent of all of our police are Federal. The Constitution 
names but three Federal crimes, so where is the justification? Talk 
about swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their 
substance. We have hovering over us daily the Federal police from the 
EPA, OSHA, FBI, CIA, DEA, EEOC, ADA, F&WL, INS, BATF, and worst of all, 
the IRS. Even criticizing the IRS makes me cringe that it might 
precipitate an audit. It seems that all administrations, to some 
degree, used the power of the agencies to reward or punish financial 
backers or political enemies.
  So much that had its origin in the 1930's, it was then that the FBI's 
role changed from friendly investigator helping local authorities to 
that of national police force.
  We live in an age where the fear of an IRS registered letter bearing 
news of an audit surpasses the fear of a street mugging. The police are 
supposed to be our friend and the Federal Government the guarantor of 
our liberties. Ask the blacks in the inner city of Los Angeles if they 
trust the police and revere the FBI and the CIA. We should not have to 
cringe when a Federal agent appears at the door of our business. We 
should not even see them there.
  A Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be protecting 
our right to our property, not confiscating it. Congress ought to 
protect our right to own a weapon of self-defense, not systematically 
and viciously attacking that right. Congress ought to guarantee all 
voluntary association, not regulate and dictate every economic 
transaction. We should not allow Congress to give credence to inane 
politically correct rules generated by egalitarian misfits. Setting 
quotas ought to insult each of us.
  We need no more centralized police efforts. We need no more wiretaps 
that have become epidemic in this last decade. We have had enough Wacos 
and Ruby Ridges.
  The foreign policy resulting from the philosophy that promotes 
welfarism is

[[Page H615]]

one of militarism and foreign interventionism. The Constitution does 
not permit the use of force to mold the internal affairs of other 
nations and involve ourselves in all worldwide conflicts. Creating a 
weapons industry and subsidizing international sales are not only forms 
of welfare, they distort the entire notion of providing for the 
national defense. It should surprise no one that our foreign policy is 
up for sale at election time. Our 20th century intervention in foreign 
policy supported by blind bipartisanship and based on the principle of 
using force in dealing with other nations threatens our security and 
challenges U.S. sovereignty.
  The march toward internationalism endorses both unilateral and 
multilateral use of foreign aid. Now we find bipartisan agreement on 
the three legs upon which the New World Order stand: the World Bank, 
the IMF, and the newly created World Trade Organization. Many believe 
we are rushing toward the dream of the 20th century internationalists 
who earnestly seek a single-world government.
  The demise of the Soviet Union system has permitted astounding 
advances for the promoters of internationalism. But the smooth sailing 
they all had hoped for is not yet evident. The expansion of NATO into 
Eastern Europe is being met with strong Russian objections. This will 
prove to be less significant due to Russia's military and economic 
decline than what it does to the current rapidly expanding Islamic 
fundamentalist movement. Islamic nations are gaining access to Soviet 
conventional and nuclear weapons, a fact frequently ignored by the 
media and our political leaders.
  A huge void occurred with the demise of the Soviet system and is 
being rapidly filled by NATO moving east, and Islamic fundamentalism 
moving north.
  Although our pro-Israel policy is designed to thwart any Arab 
challenge in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalism is a far different 
animal than secular Arab nations friendly to the West.

                              {time}  1630

  Our policy has actually worked perversely, fueling the rise of 
Islamic fundamentalism, undermining moderate secularism, and in the 
long term, may possibly even jeopardize Israel's security. The rise of 
Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia as well as 
many other nations in the Middle East cannot be ignored.
  A recent major revelation should alert us to grave danger in the 
region. Iran, acting as an economic ally to Iraq, defied United States 
and U.N. sanctions by selling Iraq's oil. This signals the possibility 
of a reconciliation between the two countries, and in the next Persian 
Gulf conflict it will make United States intervention much more costly.
  Some would argue that as the chance of major military conflict grows 
over Mideast oil, it justifies even more U.S. involvement. It should be 
clear to those who study the issue, though, that the United States' 
policies have incited the anti-Western sentiment of the radicals.
  The sooner we establish a policy of neutrality, advocated by the 
founders of this country as well as the political parties and 
Presidents prior to the 20th century, the better. It would be a lot 
wiser policy than the one we are following today.
  The Islamic people have long memories, and it is not only the U.S. 
they resent. Virtually thousands of years of European interference is 
clearly on their minds. The sooner we mind our own business, the 
better. The last Persian Gulf conflict now turns out to be much more 
costly than first believed, considering evidence of thousands suffering 
from the Persian Gulf war syndrome. It will look cheap, though, 
compared to the costs of the next conflict.
  Our interventionist foreign policy, like our domestic welfare policy, 
rests on a flawed philosophy of government. It will contribute 
significantly to our financial bankruptcy and, tragically, at the same 
time, expose us to war we do not need nor can we afford.
  If there is no fundamental philosophic change in the role of 
government, we will continue on a course not favorable for liberty and 
detrimental to our prosperity. Domestic and foreign deficits will 
continue to increase. Trade wars will ensue as GATT and WTO expand 
their role as the special agents in trade warfare. Inflation will 
accelerate, and the standard of living of all Americans will decline. 
The moderate friction we all feel now will spread and political 
frustration will not go away.
  Dividing a shrinking economic pie will not occur with grace and 
tolerance. The vultures will become more aggressive, and the efficient 
lobbyists will become a hot commodity as the carcass of free-market 
capitalism gives way to the uncontrolled demands of welfarism and 
militarism. The conventional ethics problems that engage the Congress 
will worsen while we ignore the real ethics problem of welfare 
redistribution through force.
  A lot of good intentions have brought us to our bankruptcy, but more 
good intentions cannot hide deceitful and immoral principles of 
government. The aggressive nature of welfarism must be exposed for what 
it is, if we expect to answer the question of what to do when the 
welfare state crumbles. Claiming theft is benevolent if done through 
the tax code has brought us to today's impending crisis. A clearer 
moral understanding of the nature of welfare must surface.
  Bad ideas cannot become worthwhile by good intentions. The pragmatism 
of interventionism cannot replace the rule of law that the Constitution 
gives us. Respect, once again, must be given to the limitation of 
government power that permeates this document.
  Good intentions do a great deal of harm because they soften the 
opposition and make the proposals appear humanitarian. With man's 
imperfection, mistakes inevitably happen, making bureaucratic and 
political decisions dangerous to the many instead of the few. Planners 
cannot know the personal desires of the people. Governments cannot 
protect citizens from themselves without enslaving the whole Nation.
  Planning requires government force, backed by government guns, and by 
its very nature is inefficient, wasteful, breeds fraud, and 
precipitates anger. Lobbying and campaign reform will not solve the 
conflict-of-interest problem. It will only drive the evildoers 
underground. The real problem with political corruption is that 
government has so much power and influence in every aspect of our 
economic lives, and it does pay to influence government officials.
  If we do have problems, how serious are they and what should we do 
about them? Few will agree we have no problems at all. For those who 
do, they can just ignore the entire situation. Most of us who find 
ourselves in the Congress get here talking about conditions that are 
unsatisfactory and need changing. No correct answers can be given if 
the pertinent questions are not asked.
  First, are our problems due to mismanagement, waste and fraud, or do 
they stem from a flawed notion about what the role for government ought 
to be? I believe our problems are a result of a flawed notion regarding 
government. The waste and fraud argument only distracts from the 
serious consideration about what the proper role for government ought 
to be.
  Our founders profoundly believed government's role was to protect 
liberty, and the Constitution explains precisely the powers the people 
granted to the Government. The counter-revolution to this noble 
experiment, unlike most counter-revolutions, did not immediately follow 
our establishing independence from Britain. It occurred this century, 
gradually and without military conflict. The evolution of the welfare 
state subtly and steadily undermined the principle of private property, 
free markets, and sound money, and has brought us to the brink of 
bankruptcy.
  Most Americans, if asked, would agree they would prefer to live in a 
free society over a socialist or a planned society, yet most continue 
to endorse the principle of government intervention in personal and 
economic affairs, a principle that has become acceptable this century, 
while replacing the principle of a free society the Constitution was 
designed to protect.

  Many Americans want to have it both ways, forgetting intervention 
requires sacrifice of liberty, breeds waste and fraud, invites debt, 
diminishes productivity, encourages unfulfilled commitments, and 
ultimately precipitates bankruptcy.

[[Page H616]]

  We will be forced to recommit ourselves to a different philosophy of 
government if we want to live in a free society. Perpetuating a 
bankrupt welfare state requires more and more authoritarianism with no 
chance of paying the bills and with a continuing erosion of our 
standard of living. The looming financial crisis will not quietly go 
away.
  Soviet socialism disintegrated after years of poor economic 
conditions and a tyrannical government. We need not put ourselves 
through that. The duration of a diminishing standard of living and a 
growing police state could go on for a long time if we do not recommit 
ourselves to the fundamental principles upon which freedom depends. If 
the prevailing principle that now is generally accepted by the majority 
in the U.S. Congress is not challenged, reversal of today's trend is 
impossible.
  The prevailing moral principle of the 20th century that stole the 
revolution is simply: The government has been granted the arbitrary use 
of force to bring about social and economic changes.
  Knowing the full meaning of this reveals a monstrous notion. It is 
this idea that permits today's programs of taxing, spending, 
regulating, confiscating, militarizing, harassing, policing, 
instructing, controlling, borrowing, inflating, moralizing, and 
meddling, while integrating government into every aspect of our lives; 
all done, of course, in the name of doing good. If the founders of this 
country are watching, they are surely embarrassed. What they fought for 
we have frittered away.
  I am optimistic, though, enough to believe that most Americans truly 
want to live in a free society. The numbers are rapidly growing, 
especially since the handwriting is on the wall and the government 
largesse is coming to an end. The message of liberty appeals especially 
to the younger generations, since they increasingly see themselves as 
the victims of a bankrupt welfare state that may smoulder for a long 
time.
  What principle must we accept if the welfare principle is to be 
replaced? The same one the founders followed in writing the 
Constitution: The Government does not have the moral authority to use 
force to mold society or the economy, nor does any person have this 
authority.
  Government's role is to restrain force when individuals violate the 
rights of others, which means no robbing or killing and breaking of 
one's contract. Molding behavior and regulating the economy, even if 
well-motivated, are not permissible in a free society. The problem with 
the idea that a little socialism or a little welfare is needed is that 
once the moral principle upon which welfare depends is conceded to any 
degree, there is no moral argument for limitations. Politicians trading 
votes and lobbyists earning a top-notch living will then determine the 
limits. Limitations will only come when the funds disappear, 
precipitating anger, frustration, and sacrifice of personal liberty.
  It has been said that the art of politics is compromise, and on the 
important issues, bipartisanship is crucial. If one group wants $30 
billion for a welfare program and the other wants $20 billion, both 
will settle for $25 billion. That is no compromise, that is a total 
victory for those who endorse force and taxation to redistribute 
wealth. Those arguing for less achieve nothing because they concede the 
authority to the State to rob Peter to pay Paul. Yes, a little less, 
but so what. If we come up short before the fiscal year end, a 
supplemental appropriation will pass to make up the difference. That is 
compromise?
  Compromise has a good name, but there are and must be political 
absolutes regarding the role for government. Otherwise there are no 
limits to spending and deficits. Some argue there are only gray areas 
in politics, and only compromise will permit workable solutions. Surely 
there should be no compromise on murder, theft, and fraud. These should 
be either illegal or not.
  The promoters of welfare endlessly use the compromise argument to 
soften the opposition. Compromise sounds so gentlemanly and 
compassionate. In reality, those arguing for slightly less have 
conceded the entire argument to the welfarists that government has the 
authority in the first place to promote forced redistribution. Right 
and wrong should be argued, just as right and wrong are argued on 
murder and theft.

  The record is clear that the compromise approach has been very 
successful for the welfare state. The spending is endless and deficits 
persist, while demands continue to grow.
  Simply put, government, even through congressional legislation, has 
no moral right to steal. It is wrong and the Constitution prohibits it. 
Compromise with welfare proposals will be no more successful than the 
Missouri Compromise was in solving the slavery question.
  A society that condones government violence and forced redistribution 
of wealth while attacking the right of its citizens to defend 
themselves against violence must by its very nature accept 
authoritarianism as a way of life. This will lead to severe unwanted 
violence on a grand scale, since the use of violence has been accepted 
as a proper government function. Tragically, the only defense 
eventually will be for the people to counter it with their own force.
  The purpose of politics is simple but profound: It is to achieve 
liberty, unless one wants authoritarianism. Why should we have liberty? 
A society honoring individual liberty permits the best hope for mankind 
to achieve progress in all that we do. Achieving excellence, virtue, 
happiness, spiritual well-being, economic security, and mental 
satisfaction can best be accomplished through voluntary means, 
available only in a free society.
  We must agree on the ground rules that the people have established 
with the Government. The Constitution, although now generally 
dismissed, provides that contract between the people and the 
Government. Although imperfect without the agreement, and that is 
essentially what we have today, we see the anarchy of special interest 
government in a desperate effort to satisfy their demand as bankruptcy 
draws near. Street muggings to transfer wealth are morally comparable 
to an IRS mugging used to separate a citizen from his hard-earned cash. 
Splitting the difference on an appropriations bill will do nothing to 
solve our problems. It will only make them worse by perpetuating an 
immoral system.
  The key to the Constitution working is our acceptance of the premise 
laid down by Jefferson: ``All men are endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable rights.'' Rights, being natural or God-given, are 
the only moral alternative to the secular humanists who finds violence 
a proper tool to promote the authoritarian agenda through government 
monopoly education.
  As our national bankruptcy unravels and we lose confidence in the 
dollar, more and more Americans want real answers to our problems. We 
will not find these answers in tinkering with the present system. That 
will only delay the inevitable and further inflate the financial 
bubble.
  As this becomes more evident, expect more Americans to look toward 
liberty and away from tyranny. A growing army of Americans is once 
again being introduced to the principles of liberty, and they like what 
they see. America can remain the bastion of liberty and peace, and it 
need not be a painful decision. Freedom requires no sacrifice. If any 
suffering comes, it must be laid at the doorstep of those who have 
excessively spent, regulated, and taxed.
  Restoring liberty, eliminating taxes, releasing our creative energy 
from the chains of big government bureaucrats, and permitting people to 
keep their earnings guarantee a prosperity and security not yet known 
to man. Self-respect and natural pride would follow.
  The liberty bridge to the 20th century is the bridge I hope we use, 
not the one offered to us and built by the status quo. I plan, with 
many others, to work to build the liberty bridge.

                          ____________________