[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H84-H91]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         STATE OF THE REPUBLIC

  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, the first session of the 105th Congress has 
been completed and the third year of the conservative revolution has 
passed. Current Congressional leadership has declared victory and is 
now debating on how to spend the excess revenues about to flow into the 
Treasury.
  As the legislative year came to a close, the only serious debate was 
over the extent of the spending increases negotiated into the budget. 
The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Control over 
the Congress is not seriously threatened, and there has been no clear-
cut rejection of the 20th century welfare state. But that does not mean 
that there is no effort to change the direction of the country. It is 
just that it is not yet in progress.
  But many taxpayers throughout the country are demanding change, and 
today there are more people in Washington expressing a sincere desire 
to shrink the welfare state than there were when I left 13 years ago. 
The final word on this has not yet been heard.
  In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done 
better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which 
Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and 
endanger our national security and the republic while perpetuating the 
status quo.
  Following are some of the flaws or errors in thinking about issues 
that I find pervasive throughout the Congress:
  Foreign affairs. Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the 
agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one 
the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near 
conformity, uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the 
careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy 
was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars 
going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign 
entanglements warrants close scrutiny.
  The economy, crime, the environment, drugs, currency instability, and 
many other problems are important. But it is in the area of foreign 
policy and for interventionism that provokes the greatest threat to our 
liberties and sovereignty. Whenever there are foreign monsters to slay, 
regardless of their true threat to us, misplaced patriotic zeal is used 
to force us to look outward and away from domestic problems and the 
infractions placed on our personal liberties here at home.
  Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult 
during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the 
common cliches that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is 
bipartisan; only the President can formulate foreign policy; we must 
support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually 
illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world's 
superpower; we must protect our interests like oil. However, it is 
never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote 
the military industrial complex and world government.
  Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for 
war, i.e., to kill Hussein; and any consideration of the facts involved 
elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to 
send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of 
all places, Kuwait.
  A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government 
Kuwaiti newspaper as saying, ``The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to 
make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies,'' thus 
ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States' 
continued military presence in the Middle East.
  A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, ``The use of force has 
ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.''
  Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in 
power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend 
on the United States for survival.
  In spite of the reservations and reasons to go slow, the only 
criticism coming from congressional leaders was that Clinton should do 
more, quicker, without any serious thought as to the consequences, 
which would be many.
  The fact that of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War only 
one remains, Great Britain, should make us question our policy in this 
region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It 
makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without 
considering dollar costs or threat to liberty here and abroad. Even 
without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the 
influence of the United Nations.
  These days, not even the United States moves without permission from 
the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the 
history of U-2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current 
schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these 
flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense 
Department.
  There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to 
foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war 
like Vietnam or small ones with bad results like in Somalia.
  Individual freedom is always under attack; and once there is any 
serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to 
rally around the President, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, 
the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger and not 
weaker after the Persian Gulf War.
  The role of the military industrial complex cannot be ignored; and 
since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial 
complex is more international than ever.
  But there is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign 
policy is less hidden than it had been in the past. In referring to the 
United States in the international oil company success in the Caspian 
Sea, a Houston newspaper recently proclaimed, ``U.S. views pipelines as 
a big foreign policy victory.''
  This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil 
companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while 
also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be 
successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require 
government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the 
pipelines would be cheaper but would not satisfy our international 
government planners.
  So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through 
our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes on a grand scale a 
government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love 
liberty and detest fascism. And yet, most Members of Congress will say 
little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the 
emotional outburst directed towards the local thugs running the 
Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.
  This attitude, as pervasive as it is in Washington, is tempered by 
the people's instincts for minding our own

[[Page H85]]

business, not wanting Americans to be the policemen of the world, and 
deep concern for American sovereignty. The result, not too unusual, is 
for the politicians in Washington to be doing one thing while saying 
something else at home.
  At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN 
command, and yet the financing and support for expanding the United 
Nations' and NATO's roles continues as the hysteria mounts on marching 
on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever our leaders decide the next 
monster is to be found.
  The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of 
Bosnia. Yet the President gets all the funding he wants. The Members of 
Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of 
less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, 
the President, the military industrial complex, and the special 
interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while 
risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens.
  Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times 
nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the 
most part there is a true injustice, but along with the caveat that 
threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial 
assistance, or withdrawal of assistance, or sanctions in order to force 
our will on someone else. And it is all done in the name of promoting 
the United Nations and one-world government.
  Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed 
for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of 
Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against 
countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. 
Yet our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both 
sides of each regional conflict.
  In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and 
military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as 
most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by 
power, oil and money.
  America's effort to prevent a million casualties in Rwanda does not 
anywhere compare to our perennial effort to get Hussein. It is hardly 
violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction 
that motivates us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy.
  We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and 
across the border into Iran. We support the Turks even though they 
murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing.
  There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be 
accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is about 
Iraq's control of weapons of mass destruction.
  Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by 
Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous 
because the history of the West's intrusion into the Middle East for a 
thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today 
has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists that guarantees 
that friction will persist in this region no matter how many Husseins 
or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.
  As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we 
contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth 
sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If 
the UN's plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost 
American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks 
out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom, and lives.
  Yes, I fear a biological and even a nuclear accident. But I see our 
cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were 
neutral and friends with all factions instead of trying to be a 
financial and military ally of all factions depending on the 
circumstances.

                              {time}  1545

  The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some 
unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our 
government placed them in harm's way and the enemy provoked. Then the 
argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy 
that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to 
support the troops.
  But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a 
policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American 
constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward 
guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for 
all Americans.
  American interests around the world could best be served by 
friendship and trade with all who would be friends, and subsidies to 
none.
  The balanced budget. There is a naive assumption in Washington that 
the budget is under control and will soon be balanced, while believing 
perpetual prosperity is here and new programs can now be seriously 
considered. It reminds me of an old Chinese saying, when words lose 
their meaning, people lose their liberty.
  Even the revolutionaries have claimed victory. One of the staunchest 
Members recently declared, in the end we achieved a balanced budget for 
the first time since 1969. Medicare and welfare were reformed, all in 
three short years, a truly remarkable record on how far we have come.
  I can understand a positive spin on events of the last three years by 
party leaders. That is what party leaders do. But the revolutionary 
members of the 104th Congress should not be taken in easily or quickly. 
But Washington has a strange way of dulling the senses, and no one 
enjoys peer rejection or lonely fights, where one is depicted as 
pursuing a fruitless adventure and appearing negative. Capitulating to 
the status quo is the road of least resistance, and rationalizations 
are generously offered up.
  It has been especially tempting for Members of Congress to accept the 
projection of higher revenues as a panacea to our budgetary problems. 
The prevailing attitude in Washington as 1997 came to a close was that 
the limited government forces had succeeded. The conservative 
revolution has won, and now it is time to move on and make government 
work more efficiently.
  I am sure some know better, but the real reason for these 
declarations of budgetary success is for the sole purpose of 
maintaining power. Minority leaders find themselves frustrated because 
they know spending has gone up, and the higher tax revenues have helped 
those in charge.
  The Republican Congress and President Clinton benefited, while the 
Democratic Congressional leaders could only ask why can't more be spent 
on welfare if the country is doing so well? Fundamental problems like 
the size of the budget, the deficit, the debt, higher taxes, currency 
problems and excessive regulations were put on the back burner, if not 
ignored altogether.
  While complacency regarding foreign policy sets the stage for danger 
overseas, this naive attitude regarding the budget and the deficit is 
permitting the welfare state to be reenergized and cancel entirely any 
efforts to reduce the size and scope of government.
  Under Reagan, as in the early parts of the Republican control of 
Congress, some signs of deceleration in the growth of government were 
seen. But even then, there was no pretense made to shrink the size of 
government. And, once again, the path of least resistance has been to 
capitulate and allow government to grow as it has been for decades. 
Heaven forbid, no one ever again wants to be blamed for closing down 
nonessential government services. Only cruel and heartless Constitution 
lists would ever suggest such a politically foolish stunt.
  It is not going to happen. 1997 has proven what many have suspected, 
that reversing or arresting a welfare state cannot occur by majority 
vote. With apparent wealth abundance in the United States, the reversal 
assuredly will not come with ease. Once redistribution of wealth is 
permitted by the democratic vote, destruction of production will occur 
before the majority will choose to curtail their own benefits.
  The end is closer than most realize, considering the optimistic 
rhetoric coming from Washington, plus the fact the majority of citizens 
are beneficiaries of the system, and even the producers have grown 
dependent on government protection, grants, contracts and special 
subsidies.
  Although the session ended on a modestly happy bipartisan note, I 
suspect

[[Page H86]]

in time 1997 will be looked upon as a sad year, in that the limited 
government revolution of 1994 was declared lost by adjournment time in 
November.
  That does not mean the fight for liberty is over, but the hope that 
came by reversing Congressional rule after 40 years has been dampened 
and a lot more work is necessary for success. The real battle is to win 
the hearts and minds of Americans outside of Washington to prepare the 
country for the day when the welfare state ceases to function due to an 
empty treasury and the dollar, not worth its weight, comes under 
attack.
  Specifics worth pondering: The budget for current fiscal year 1998 
calls for expenditures of $1.69 trillion, or $89 billion above last 
year. The 1997 budget was $22 billion over 1996. The so-called balanced 
budget bragged about is to occur in the year 2002, with more cuts being 
made in the year 2001 and a level of spending far above today's. The 
expenditures in the year 2002 are expected to increase to $1.9 
trillion, over $200 billion more than this year.
  Increased revenues obviously accomplish the job of a theoretically 
balanced budget, but also these projections do not take into account 
the huge sums borrowed from Social Security. Even if things go well and 
as planned, the optimism is based on deception, wishful thinking and a 
huge raid on the Social Security and other trust funds. In spite of 
this, the politicians in Washington are eagerly planning on how to 
spend the coming budgetary surpluses.
  All these rosy projections are dependent on economic strength, steady 
low interest rates, and no supplemental appropriations. Every session 
of Congress gets supplementals, and if the economy takes a downturn, 
the higher the appropriation.
  The last three years are not much to brag about. Domestic spending 
has gone up by $183 billion. In the prior three years, when Democrats 
controlled the Congress, spending increased by $155 billion. Tax 
increases are now inevitably referred to as revenue enhancement and 
closing of loopholes.
  In spite of some wonderful IRS bashing by nearly everyone and 
positive hearings in exposing the ruthless tactics of the IRS, Congress 
and the President saw fit to give the IRS a whopping $729 million 
increase in its budget, hoping the IRS will become more efficient in 
their collection procession. Real spending cuts are not seriously 
considered.
  Congress continues to obfuscate by calling token cuts in previously 
proposed increases as budget cuts. The media and the proponents of big 
government and welfare obediently demagogue this issue by decrying why 
the slashes in the budget are inhumane and uncaring.

  Without honesty in language and budgeting, true reforms are 
impossible. In spite of the rhetoric, bold new educational and medical 
programs were started, setting the stage for massive new spending in 
the future. New programs always cost more than originally projected. 
The block grant approach to reform did not prompt a decrease in 
spending, and frequently added to it. The principle of whether or not 
the Federal Government should even be involved in education, medicine, 
welfare, farming, et cetera, was not seriously considered.
  The 1998 budget is the largest ever and represents the biggest 
increase in the domestic budget in eight years. Those in charge threw 
in the towel and surrendered all efforts this past year to cut back the 
size of government. In this fiscal year, many concede the deficit will 
actually go up, even without a slowing in the economy.
  In this year's budget, Medicare and Medicaid increased four to five 
times the rate of inflation. This is not a complete surprise to the 
logical skeptics when it comes to fiscal matters, but it is just a 
little exasperating to hear the positive pronouncements of current 
leaders who just a few years ago would have been only too eager to 
point out the shortcomings of deceptive arithmetic.
  Power is a corrupting influence, but, for now, at least, a 
Congressional power shift is not in the making. There are still a lot 
of recipients that are happily reassured that additional revenues can 
be found. The new management is welcomed, and it is hoped the new guys 
on the block can salvage for a while a system that many deep down in 
their hearts are convinced is not manageable for much longer.
  There is a sense of relief the welfare state has received a reprieve. 
One can almost hear the sigh amplified by hearing of the problems in 
the Southeast Asia countries with their currency and stock market 
problems, not realizing it is the U.S. taxpayers and the dollar that 
will be called upon for the bailout of this financial crisis.
  The great danger of all of this is the false sense of economic 
security Congress feels, that has prompted total abandonment of efforts 
to actually cut any spending and with plans being laid for spending 
increases.
  The message is this: The politicians will never limit spending, but, 
eventually, the market will. It has already done so in Thailand, South 
Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.
  The international currency crisis: Congress lacks concern and 
understanding of the significance of the Asian currency crisis. 
Monetary policy has never excited many Members of the Committee on 
Banking, let alone other members of Congress. A handful of Members do 
consistently complain to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but 
inevitably it is to object to the high interest rates and not enough 
credit being available to either the poor or the rich beneficiaries of 
Central Bank credit largesse.
  The Southeast Asian currency and economic bailout will exceed $100 
billion. We will be propping up these currencies by sending American 
taxpayers' dollars, the same thing we did in Mexico in 1995. 
Multilateral efforts through the IMF, World Bank and other development 
banks are used, and in each one the United States is the most generous 
donor.
  IMF bailouts, just as our military foreign intervention, are 
generally supported by the leadership of both parties. The 
establishment has firm control in these two areas and who, out of 
ignorance or neglect, the Congress as a whole provides little 
resistance. When the stronger currencies, in this case the dollar, 
props up a weaker currency, it is nothing more than an example of an 
international transfer of payment that helps our banks and 
international corporate investors who have financial exposure in the 
country or currency under attack.
  These bailouts will work, to some degree, until the dollar itself 
comes under attack. Our relatively strong economy and the current 
perceptions of undue dollar strength allows great leverage in this 
extremely expensive and risky bailout operation.
  The genius of it all is that Federal Reserve credit expansion and its 
off-budget budgeting permits these funds to be spent without oversight. 
IMF appropriations are not even counted toward the deficit, and credit 
expansion is under complete control of the Federal Reserve.
  Long-term, the average American citizen suffers through higher 
interest rates, rising prices, recessions and lower standard of living, 
but the cause and effect is conveniently hidden from the public and the 
Congress.
  After the Mexican bailout, her citizens lost 50 percent of their 
purchasing power, a dramatic pay cut. Yet the great danger is that some 
day we will be forced to pay, possibly with a dollar crisis that will 
make the Asian currency crisis look small in comparison.
  All currency crises are serious and usher in economic and political 
problems for the country involved, and since no one likes it, blame is 
generally misplaced.
  When the dollar comes under attack, since it is the reserve currency 
of the world, a much more serious crisis than we are currently 
witnessing in Asia will occur. Only a universal acceptance of a single 
worldwide commodity standard of money can prevent these periodic 
devaluations and disruptions in trade that are so prevalent today.
  The day before we adjourned the first session of the 105th Congress, 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held hearings on the 
Asian currency crisis, but it was more an attempt to reassure the 
financial community than to sort out the cause and do something about 
it.
  Instead, the dollar was crowned king, and Greenspan promised 
stability. Our real interest rates, balance of payments, our current 
account deficit and budgetary deficits were conveniently

[[Page H87]]

ignored, because if they had been looked at seriously, it would have 
been recognized that the U.S. and the world faces a major financial 
crisis once the dollar can no longer be used to bail out the world 
financial system.
  Currency issues are serious and a much bigger problem than Congress 
realizes. Even the Fed has convinced itself it is quite capable of 
managing our fiat currency and our financial markets through any 
crisis. The money managers are every bit as powerful as the Congress, 
which taxes and spends, but the Federal Reserve's actions are much less 
scrutinized.
  But when push comes to shove, the markets always win out. Interest 
rates are less than one percent in Japan, but have not prompted 
borrowers to come forth nor bankers to lend. The proposed $25 billion 
injection by the Bank of Japan will not solve the problem either. Even 
central bankers cannot push on a string.
  The sad part is that all these shenanigans will cause undue suffering 
to the innocent who lose their jobs, suffer from price inflation and 
see their standard of living shrink.
  Eventually, everyone though is threatened by the political disruption 
that can ensue with a currency mishap. Our greatest concern should be 
for our loss of liberties that so often accompany a currency crisis. 
Congressional attitude toward monetary policy is not likely to change 
soon, so we can expect a lot more turmoil in the currency markets in 
the months ahead.

                              {time}  1600

  Two special areas. Congress in the past year capitulated in two 
significant areas by not only failing to cut spending, but massively 
increasing government's role in medicine and in education. House 
Republicans bragged that 7 out of 8 educational initiatives passed the 
House, many of them being quite expensive. Charter schools cost over 
$100 million, funding for vouchers was increased, $3 billion was 
appropriated to extend student loans, and a new $210 million reading in 
excellence program was initiated. A program for high-tech training and 
one designed to help children with disabilities was also started.
  Clinton's new health care program for children was accepted by 
Congress, which will eventually cost billions and further centralize 
medical care in Washington, while quality of care is diminished. 
Billions of dollars increased in NIH, AIDS research and preventative 
health care were also approved.
  The Federal Government has been involved in education and medicine 
more than in any other domestic area. This has caused a serious price 
inflection for these two services, while undermining the quality and 
results in both. The more we spend, the higher the cost, the worse the 
service, and the greater the regulations. So what did Congress do to 
solve the problems in the past year? Even in this so-called age of 
cutting back and a balanced budget, it expanded government precisely in 
the two areas that suffer the most from big government.
  This is strong evidence that we have not yet learned anything in the 
past 50 years, and the 1994 revolution has not yet changed things. We 
can expect more HMO's and PPO mismanagement, rationing medical service 
and price control of all medical services. Shortages of quality health 
care and education will result.
  Devolution. Block grants are the popular vehicle to restore local 
control of the Federal bureaucracy. The housing bill, the first major 
change to public housing since the Depression, did not cut spending, 
but actually increased funding through the block grant system of 
devolving power to the States. A token effort similar to this was made 
in the early 1970s under Nixon called revenue-sharing. It did not work 
and was dropped.
  This new method will not work either. Whether the bureaucrats are in 
Washington or in the State capitols, it will not change the dynamics of 
public housing. Public ownership, whether managed locally or federally, 
cannot replace the benefits of private ownership. Besides, the block 
grant method of allocating funds does not eliminate the need to first 
collect the revenues nationally and politically distribute the funds to 
the various State entities. Strings will always be attached no matter 
how many safeguards are written into the law. The process of devolution 
is an adjustment in management and does not deal with the philosophic 
question of whether or not the Federal Government or even the State 
governments ought to be involved. The high hopes that this process will 
alter the course of the welfare state will, I am sure, be dashed after 
many more years of failures and dollars spent.
  There is essentially no serious consideration in Washington for 
abolishing agencies, let alone whole departments. If the funding for 
the pornographic NEA cannot be cut, which agency of government should 
we expect to be? The devolution approach is not the proponents of big 
government's first choice, but it is acceptable to them. Early 
adjournment meant the call for more spending was satisfied and the 
supporters of big government, in spite of the rhetoric, were content. 
Searching for a partisan issue, the minority was content with campaign 
reform and the questions surrounding illegal voting.
  Devolution is said to be a return to States rights since it is 
inferred that management of the program will be decentralized. This is 
a new 1990s definition of the original concept of States rights and 
will prove not to be an adequate substitute.
  At the same time these token efforts were made in welfare, education 
and human resources reform, Congress gave the Federal Government 
massive new influence over adoption and juvenile crime, education and 
medicine. Block grants to States for specific purposes after collecting 
the revenues at the Federal level is foreign to the concept that once 
was understood as States rights. This process, even if temporarily 
beneficial, will do nothing to challenge the underlying principle and 
shortcomings of the welfare State.
  Real battles. The real battles in the Congress are more often over 
power and personalities than philosophy. Both sides of most debates 
represent only a variation of some interventionist program. Moral and 
constitutional challenges are made when convenient and never follow a 
consistent pattern. These, along with the States rights arguments, are 
not infrequently just excuses used to justify opposing or approving a 
program supported for some entirely different reason. The person who 
makes any effort at consistency is said to be extreme or unyielding.
  After giving a short speech criticizing the inconsistency of our 
foreign policy, another Member quickly rose to his feet and used the 
Walter Emerson quote to criticize my efforts saying, ``A foolish 
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen 
and philosophers and divines.'' Criticizing another Member for 
following a consistent freedom philosophy and strict adherence to the 
Constitution is more of an attempt to reassure the critics themselves 
who are uneasy with their own position. Obviously, criticizing one for 
consistency either means that pragmatism and inconsistency is something 
to be proud of, or there is little respect for the philosophy that is 
consistently being defended, a truth the critics are not likely to 
admit.
  Public relation debates. Oftentimes the big debates in Congress are 
more public relation efforts than debates on real issues. This is 
certainly true when it comes to preventing foreign aid funds from being 
used by any organization for abortions. I agree with and vote for all 
attempts to curtail the use of U.S. taxpayers' funds for abortion 
within or outside the United States. But many in the pro-life movement 
are not interested in just denying all birth control, population 
control and abortion money to everyone, and avoid the very 
controversial effort to impose our will on other nations. Believing 
money allocated to any organization or country is not fungible is 
naive, to say the least. The biggest problem is that many who are 
sincerely right to life and believe the Mexico City language 
restriction on foreign aid will work are also philosophic believers in 
internationalism, both social and military.
  The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. 
funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive 
abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and 
the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the 
philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World

[[Page H88]]

Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens 
on the American people.

  It is conceded by the majority on both sides of this debate that the 
U.N., the IMF, the development banks and even the funds for population 
control are legitimate expenditures and eventually will be funded. The 
question is only whether or not a public relations victory can be 
achieved by the radical pro-abortion supporters of the President's or 
the pro-life supporters.
  We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all 
going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is 
where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the 
Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will 
not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself 
does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, 
and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that 
if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any 
money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction 
debate moot.
  Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are 
sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military 
assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by 
threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument 
that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is 
whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to 
use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering 
around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America.
  The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to 
prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the 
illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more 
swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not 
only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control 
and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the 
appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change 
the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments.
  Corporatism. Congress and the administration is greatly influenced by 
corporate America. We truly have a system of corporatism that if not 
checked will evolve into a much more threatening form of fascism. Our 
welfare system provides benefits for the welfare poor and, in return, 
the recipients vote to perpetuate the entire system. Both parties are 
quite willing to continue the status quo in not questioning the 
authority upon which these programs are justified, but the general 
public is unaware of how powerful corporate America is in changing and 
influencing legislation. Even those programs said to be specific for 
the poor, like food stamps, housing, education and medicine, have 
corporate beneficiaries. These benefits to corporate America are 
magnified when it is realized that many of the welfare 
redistributionist programs are so often not successful in helping the 
poor.
  But there are many other programs precisely designed to satisfy the 
special interests of big business. A casual observer that might think 
the political party that champions the needs of the poor would not be 
getting political and financial support from the rich. But quite 
clearly, both parties are very willing to receive financial and 
political support from special interests representing the rich and the 
poor, business and labor, domestic and foreign.
  We should not expect campaign reform are reliable revelations of 
campaign fund-raising abuse in today's political climate. There are 
strong bipartisan reasons to keep the debate on only a superficial 
level. All the rules in the world will never eliminate the motivation 
or the ability of the powerful special interests to influence Congress. 
Loopholes and illegal contributions will plague us for as long as 
Congress continues with the power to regulate, tax, or detax, or 
punishes essentially everyone participating in the economy.
  The most we can ever hope for is to demand full disclosure. Then, if 
influence is bought, at least it would be in the open. The other most 
difficult task, and the only thing that will ever dampen special 
interest control of government, would be to radically reduce the power 
of Congress over our lives and our economy. Taxpayer funding of 
campaigns would prove disastrous.
  The special areas of the budget that are of specific benefit to 
corporate America are literally too numerous to count, but there are 
some special programs benefiting corporations that usually prompt 
unconditional support from both parties. The military industrial 
complex is clearly recognized for its influence in Washington. This 
same group has a vested interest in our foreign policy that encourages 
policing the world, Nation building, and foreign social engineering. 
Big contracts are given to friendly corporations in places like Haiti, 
Bosnia and the Persian Gulf region. Corporations benefiting from these 
programs are unable to deal objectively with foreign policy issues, and 
it is not unusual for these same corporate leaders to lobby for troop 
deployments in worldwide military intervention. The U.S. remains the 
world's top arms manufacturer and our foreign policy permits the 
exports to world customers subsidized through the Export-Import Bank. 
Foreign aid, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import 
Bank, IMF, World Bank, development banks are all used to continue 
bailouts of Third World countries heavily invested in by our 
corporations and banks. Corporations can get special tax treatment that 
only the powerful and influential can achieve. For instance, pseudo-
free trade legislation like NAFTA and GATT and the recent Fast Track 
legislation shows how much big business influences both congressional 
leaders and the administration.
  While crumbs are cast to the poor with programs that promote 
permanent dependency and impoverishment, the big bucks go to the 
corporations and the banking elites. The poor welcome the crumbs, not 
realizing how much long-term harm the programs do as they obediently 
continue to vote for a corporate-biased welfare state where the rich 
get richer and the poor get forgotten. Since generally both parties 
support a different version of interventionism, one should not expect 
the programs for the rich to be attacked on principle or cut in size. 
The result of last year's legislative session should surprise no one.
  Both types of welfare expenditures benefit from a monetary system 
that creates credit out of thin air in order to monetize congressional 
deficits when needed and manipulate interest rates downward to 
nonmarket levels to serve the interests of big borrowers and lenders. 
Federal Reserve policy is an essential element in serving the powerful 
special interests. Monetary mischief of this type will not likely be 
ended by congressional action, but will be eventually stopped by market 
forces, just as has recently occurred in the Far East.
  Voluntary contracts. There is little understanding or desire in 
Congress to consistently protect voluntary contract. Many of our 
programs to improve race relations have come from government 
interference in the voluntary economic contract. Government's role in a 
free society should be to enforce contracts, yet too often it does the 
opposite. All labor laws, affirmative action programs and consumer 
protection laws are based on the unconstitutional authority of 
government to regulate voluntary economic contracts. If the same 
process were applied to the press, it would be correctly condemned as 
prior restraint and ruled unconstitutional.
  Throughout the 20th century, economic and personal liberties have 
undergone a systematic separation. Rules applying to the media and 
personal relationships no longer apply to voluntary economic 
transactions. Some Members of Congress are quite vocal in defending the 
First Amendment and fight hard to protect freedom of expression by 
cautioning against any effort at prior restraint. They can speak 
eloquently on why V chip technology in the hands of the government may 
lead to bad things, even if proponents are motivated to protect our 
children from pornography. Likewise, these partial civil libertarians 
are quite capable of demanding the protection of all adult voluntary 
sexual activity. They mount respectable challenges to the social 
authoritarian who never hesitates to use government force to mold 
society and improve personal moral behavior.

[[Page H89]]

                              {time}  1615

  But these same champions of personal liberty do not hesitate at all 
to use the same government force they readily condemn in social matters 
to impose their vision of a fair and equitable economic system on all 
of us.
  Thousands of laws and regulations are on the books to assure equality 
in hiring, pay, and numerous other conditions of employment and for 
theoretical consumer protection.
  Ironically, the enemies of the voluntary contract, when dealing with 
the media and personal associations, are the best defenders of economic 
liberty and the voluntary economic contract.
  Unless this glaring inconsistency is reconciled, the republic cannot 
be salvaged. Too often, the two sides compromise in the wrong 
direction. Economic libertarians concede too much to the welfare 
proponents and the social libertarians concede too much to the 
authoritarians who eagerly try to legislate good behavior. This 
willingness to compromise, while at the same time criticizing those who 
have firm beliefs as being overly rigid, serves as a serious threat to 
the cause of liberty.
  A consistent defense of all voluntary associations does not preclude 
laws against violence, fraud, threat, libel and slander. To punish acts 
of aggression and protect non-violent economic and social associations 
is the main purpose of government in a constitutional republic. Moral 
imperfections cannot be eliminated by government force any more than 
economic inequalities can be eliminated through welfare or socialist 
legislation.
  Once government loses sight of its true purpose of protecting liberty 
and embarks on a course where the generous use of force is used to 
interfere in the voluntary social and economic contracts, liberty will 
be diminished and the foundation of a true republic undermined.
  That is where we are today. The effort on both sides to do ``good'' 
threatens personal liberty. There is no evidence that laws designed to 
improve personal sexual habits, the quality of the press or the plight 
of the poor have helped. The poor, under all programs of forced 
redistribution of wealth, always become more numerous. And the State 
inevitably abuses its power when it tries to regulate freedom of 
expression or improve personal behavior.
  Too often both sides allow the principle of government force to be 
used to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations at a great 
cost and risk to American taxpayers, while accomplishing little except 
to promote a firm hatred of America for the interference. This itself 
is a threat to our security. The resulting conditions of international 
conflict are used as an excuse to curtail the civil liberties of all 
Americans.
  In recent years, freedom of the press has been severely challenged 
when we are actively involved in military operations. Our young people 
are threatened as they are needlessly exposed to enemy fire and medical 
experimentation and there is an economic cost through higher taxes.
  National sovereignty designed to protect liberty in a republic is 
challenged as our foreign operations are controlled by U.N. 
resolutions, not Congress. Under these conditions, our cities are more 
likely to be targeted by terrorists for the hatred our policies fuel. 
Draft registration remains in place just in case more bodies are needed 
for our standing U.N. armies. The draft remains the ultimate attack on 
volunteerism and represents the most direct affront to individual 
liberty. This is made that much worse when one realizes that it is 
highly unlikely that we will ever see American troops in action under 
anything other than a U.N.-sponsored war or military operation.
  Only with a greater understanding and respect for individual liberty 
and the importance of voluntary associations in all areas of social and 
economic life will we be able to preserve our liberty, peace and 
prosperity. This is required for the republic to survive.
  Congress reflects the nation's current obsession with political 
correctness. The strange irony is that this whole movement has been 
encouraged by groups and individuals who in the past have been seen as 
the champions of free expression and civil liberties. These efforts to 
interfere with freedom of expression come from a desire to punish those 
in economic superior positions. Political correctness encourages 
promotions or firings for casual and rude statements once ridiculed by 
merely ignoring them. The age of victimization demands political 
correctness be carried to an illogical conclusion and the plan for 
perfect economic equality demands language that reflect these goals. 
It's truly an area that reflects a complete lack of understanding of 
the principles of liberty and is an understandable result of this 
century's division of liberty into two parts. The motive seems to be to 
make people better by forcing them to use only correct language and to 
provide special benefits to groups that are economically disadvantaged. 
It's not uncommon to hear of people losing their jobs and reputation 
over harmless comments or telling off-colored jokes. Talk about 
discrimination, this is the worst.
  The concept of ``hate crimes'' is now enmeshed in all legislation. 
Pretending we can measure motivation and punish it is preposterous. 
Varying penalties, thus placing more value on one life than another, is 
a totalitarian idea.
  The political correctness movement and the concept of hate crimes 
will lead to laws against ``hate speech.'' Clearly the constitution is 
designed to protect protesters, even those who express hatred at times 
and is not limited to the protection of non-controversial speech. 
Freedom of expression is indeed under serious attack in this country. 
Already there are laws in two countries prohibiting even questioning 
the details of the Holocaust. In America that's certainly not permitted 
under the rules of political correctness.
  Some still believe that ``hate crimes'' in America are limited to 
identifying the racial and religious motivation behind a violent crime. 
But it's scary when one realizes that already we have moved quickly 
down the path of totalitarianism. In 1995, 57% of all hate crimes 
reported were verbal in nature. These crimes now being prosecuted by an 
all powerful federal police force, at one time were considered nothing 
more than comments made by rude people. The federal police operation is 
headed up by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education 
and can reach every nook and cranny of our entire education system as 
it imposes its will and curriculum on teachers and students.
  Whatever happened to the child's logic of ``sticks and stones will 
break my bones but names will never hurt me?'' This basic philosophy 
offered a logical response to taunts by bullies. Today, the bully is 
the government which is determined to regulate, enforce, and imprison 
anyone who doesn't tow the line of political correctness, multi-
culturalism and follow government dictated social and economic rules.
  But why can't we consider a solution that incorporates the healthy 
skepticism of those opposing government mandated V-chips and telephone 
monitoring devices with those who see the foolishness and danger of 
political correctness, especially seen when it comes to enforcing 
crimes against hate speech. Too often the same people who understand 
the hate crimes issue are the ones that believe government ought to be 
able to monitor our telephone and computer and censor television 
programming.
  This confusion is becoming structural and the longer it's an accepted 
principle, the greater the threat to the Republic and our liberties.
  As long as it is fashionable or humorous to refer to one who 
consistently defends individual liberty as a ``hobgoblin of little 
minds'' our liberties will be threatened. Accepting and rationalizing 
any inconsistency while rejecting the principal defenders of a free 
society as impractical represents a danger to the republic. A strict 
adherence to the Constitution is surely not something that should be 
encouraged or tolerated, according to these critics.
  By insisting that all government action be guided by tolerance and 
compromise in any effort to protect liberty, it is only natural that 
strict observance to standards in other areas would be abandoned. And 
it is true, we now live in an age where life has relative value, money 
has no definition, marriage is undefinable, moral values are taught as 
relative ethics in our classrooms, good grades in the classroom no 
longer reflect excellence, success in business is often subjected to 
doubts because of affirmative action, and corporate profits depend more 
on good lobbyists in Washington than creative effort.
  Pragmatism and interventionism are popular because of their 
convenience and appeal to those who crave governing over others and 
those who expect unearned benefits. This process can last a long time 
when some incentives to produce remain in place. But eventually it 
leads to an attack on the value of money confiscatory taxation, over 
regulation, excessive borrowing on the future and undermining of trust 
in the political process. Once this system

[[Page H90]]

is entrenched, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to gracefully 
reverse the process.
  The usual result is the various groups receiving benefits become 
highly competitive and bitter toward each other. Eventually, it leads 
to a time when compromise and government planning no longer look 
practical nor fair. In the next few years, we can expect this to become 
more evident as Congress will be forced to acknowledge that the budget 
has more problems than was admitted to in the closing days of the first 
session of the 105th Congress.
  If we do not define the type of government we are striving for and 
reject interventionism as a doctrine, the endless debate will remain 
buried in details of form and degree of the current system with no 
discussion of substance. Merely deciding where to draw the line on 
government involvement in our lives will consume all the energy of the 
legislative process. Whether or not we should be involved at all will 
receive little attention.
  In order to direct our efforts toward preservation of liberty, in 
lieu of planning the economy and regulating people, we must have a 
clear understanding of rights. But could British Prime Minister Tony 
Blair be telling us being about Western Civilization and government's 
responsibility to the people? Blair was quoted in a recent visit with 
the President as saying, ``I tell you, a decent society is not based on 
rights, it is based on duty. Our duty to one another. To all should be 
given opportunity, from all responsibility demanded.''
  This sounds just a tad authoritarian and closer to the Communist 
Manifesto than to the Magna Carta or to the Bill of Rights.
  A free society is just the opposite. I argue that a free society is 
the only ``decent'' society and the only one that I care to live in. A 
free society depends entirely on personal rights for which all 
individuals are naturally entitled. This was the bedrock of the 
Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and the principle upon 
which our republic rests.
  Yet today most of the West, now engulfed by Keynesian welfarism, 
sadly accepts the Blair philosophy. Duty and responsibility, as Blair 
sees it, is not the voluntary responsibility found in a free society 
but rather duty and responsibility to the State. He is right about one 
thing. If duty to the State is accepted as an uncontested fact, rights 
are meaningless. And everyday our rights are indeed becoming more 
threatened.
  We have come to accept it as immoral and selfish to demand individual 
rights. Today, rights are too frequently accepted as being collective, 
such as minority, gay, women, handicapped, poor, or student rights. But 
rights are only individual. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and 
property, and it comes naturally or is a God-given gift.
  The purpose of the State is to protect equally everyone's rights. The 
whole purpose of political action should be to protect liberty. Free 
individuals then with a sense of responsibility and compassion must 
then strive for moral excellence and economic betterment. When 
government loses sight of the importance of rights and assumes the 
responsibility reserved to free individuals and sets about to make the 
economy equally fair to everyone and improve personal nonviolent 
behavior, the effort can only be made at the expense of liberty with 
the efforts ending in failure.
  National governments should exist to protect individual liberty at 
home by enforcing laws against violence and fraud and from outside 
threats. The bigger and more international government becomes, the more 
likely it is that the effort will fail.
  The original challenge to the champions of freedom centuries ago was 
always to limit the powers of the king. Today the challenge, every bit 
as great but harder to define, is to limit the power of democratic 
parliaments and congresses. Democratic elections of leaders is one 
thing, but obsession with determining all rights by majority vote has 
now become liberty's greatest enemy.
  Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world 
government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a 
constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long 
as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on 
the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest 
influence on legislation.
  When government's sole purpose is to protect the lowliest of the 
minority, the individual, there will be no market for influence buying. 
Regulating the peddlers of graft will only make things worse for the 
rules will further undermine the right of the individual to petition 
and seek his own redress of grievances.
  Detailed rules on political donations and lobbyist activity can 
easily be circumvented by the avaricious. Only a better understanding 
of rights and the proper role of government will alter the course upon 
which we have embarked.
  Political leaders no longer see their responsibility to protect life 
and liberty as a sacred trust and a concept of individual rights has 
been significantly undermined throughout the 20th century. The record 
verifies this. Authoritarian governments, in this the bloodiest of all 
centuries, have annihilated over 100 million people, their own. Wars 
have killed an additional 34 million, and only a small number of these 
were truly in the defense of liberty.
  The main motivation behind these mass murders was to maintain 
political power. Liberty in many ways has become the forgotten cause of 
the 20th century. Even the mildest mannered welfarist depends on 
government guns and threats of prison to forcefully extract wealth from 
producers to transfer it to the politically well-connected. The same 
government force is used by the powerful rich to promote from the 
programs designed to benefit them.

  The budgetary process and the transfer of wealth that occurs through 
monetary inflation is influenced more by the business and banking elite 
than by the poor. The $1.7 trillion budget is not an investment in 
liberty. The kings are gone and I doubt that we will see another 
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao, but the ``majority'' in our legislative 
bodies now reign supreme with one goal in mind: maintaining power.
  To do this they must satisfy the power brokers, pretending they are 
humanitarian saviors while ignoring their responsibility to protect 
individual liberty.
  ``Democracy'' is now the goal of all those who profess progress and 
peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world 
government.
  The question is, where will our alternative come from? Which group or 
individual truly speaks for liberty and limited government? The 
speeches, the rhetoric, the campaigns rarely reveal the underlying 
support most politicians have for expanding the State, especially when 
coming from those who are thought to be promoting limited government.
  Those who believe in welfare and socialism are frequently more 
straightforward. But we are now hearing from some traditional 
``opponents'' of big government, admonishing us to stop ``trashing'' 
government. Instead, we should be busy ``fixing it.'' They do it 
without once challenging the moral principle that justifies all 
government intervention in our personal lives and economic 
transactions.
  William J. Bennett strongly condemns critics of big government 
saying, ``. . . some of today's antigovernment rhetoric is contemptuous 
of history and not intellectually serious. If you listen to it, you 
come away with the impression that government has never done anything 
well. In fact, government has done some very difficult things quite 
well. Like . . . reduced the number of elderly in poverty . . . passed 
civil rights legislation . . . insure bank deposits and insure the air 
and water remains clean.''
  Bennett's great concern is this. ``Disdain of representative 
government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to 
instill in citizens a noble love of country'' (the State rather than 
liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country 
because of their ``utter contempt some have directed against government 
itself.'' In other words, we must love our government ruled by the 
tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom 
and America.
  Any effort to limit the size of government while never challenging 
the moral principle upon which all government force depends, while 
blindly defending majoritarian rule for making

[[Page H91]]

government work, will not restore the American republic. Instead, this 
approach gives credibility to the authoritarians and undermines the 
limited government movement by ignoring the basic principles of 
liberty. Only a restoration of a full understanding of individual 
rights and the purpose of a constitutional republic can reverse this 
trend. Our republic is indeed threatened.

                          ____________________