Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks

Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin Washington is building for the US economy. Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way. A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States . Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns. Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.

Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.

The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.

Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.

Surrender Should Not Be an Option

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.

The Sunlight Rule

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Indeed some of the most malignant growth of our government has been nurtured under a cover of darkness.

Literally, in the dark hours of the morning at the end of the year, it has become tradition for the Appropriations committee to rush the famous omnibus bill to the floor for a vote, mere hours after it is introduced. The vote took place at 4 am the last time an omnibus spending bill was before us. We had all of 4 hours to deliberate on almost 1400 pages of important legislation. My colleagues somehow found this acceptable, however, and the bill passed 212-206.

The bill for the Expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was also rushed to the floor with little time to examine the lengthy text of the legislation. If approved by the Senate this measure would increase taxes by an additional $53.8 billion over 5 years and further extend the federal government’s reach into the healthcare of American citizens. Similar processes were followed for raising the minimum wage, providing funding for stem cell research and implementing the 9-11 conference.

Of course, the most well-known example of this phenomenon might be the Patriot Act. Legislators passed the 300+ page bill less than a day after it was introduced, many out of an urgency to do something. But we are sent to Washington to make informed decisions on public policy. The very least constituents expect is that their elected representatives read the legislation citizens will be subject to, and taxed for. And once they have read it, to weigh the constitutionality and the merits of the legislation. How can lawmakers possibly do that without reasonable time allotted?

This has long been a concern of mine, and for this reason I have reintroduced The Sunlight Rule. (H.RES 63) This proposed rule stipulates that no piece of legislation can be brought before the House of Representatives for a vote unless it has been available to members and staff to read for at least ten days. Any amendments must be available for at least 72 hours before a vote. The Sunlight Rule provides the American people the opportunity to be involved in enforcing congressional rules by allowing citizens to move for censure of any Representative who votes for a bill brought to the floor in violation of this act.

So far I have two co-sponsors. It is my belief that this simple new rule could greatly disinfect the House of the creeping, insidious growth, merely by shining the light on legislation before it is voted on. We need time to think before we enact. The American people deserve at least this much from their Congress.

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. (Introduced in House)

HRES 63 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 63

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 12, 2007

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon.

Resolved, That (a) the Rules of the House of Representatives are amended by adding at the end the following new rule:

`RULE XXIX

`TIME TO READ LEGISLATION BEFORE VOTING

`1. Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, no bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment between the Houses shall be voted on by the House unless the text of that measure has been available to all Members and their staffs in both printed and electronic format for at least 10 days and any manager's amendment or other amendment which makes substantive changes to the legislation has been made available in both printed and electronic versions for at least 72 hours before the scheduled vote on such legislation.

`2. Clause 1 shall not apply to--

`(1) the intelligence authorization bill, appropriations, or other legislation containing classified information, or conference report thereon, if Members have at least 7 days to study the contents of such measure; and

`(2) congressional declarations of war or authorization of military force to respond to attacks on the United States.

`3. (a) Any Member who votes for any measure that has been placed before the House in violation of this rule shall be deemed to have violated House ethics rules and be subject to censure.

`(b ) Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, any citizen who is eligible to vote and who is not an employee of the executive or judicial branch of the Government may petition the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct to investigate allegations that a Member voted for any measure that violated this rule.'.

(b ) Clause 6© of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (2) and inserting `; or' and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(3) a rule or order that would waive the provisions of rule XXIX.'.

Keeping Promises to Seniors

With our country's finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending. The predictable answer to the government's voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in Iraq . Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon. We must keep these promises.

An analysis of the Social Security "Trust Fund" shows we are not doing a credible job of keeping these promises. Official reports show the trust fund having assets of $2.1 trillion. In reality, those dollars are just IOUs the government is writing to itself when it borrows from the fund to spend on unrelated programs. There are no real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. This is similar to taking money out of your savings account, spending it, then replacing it with an IOU to yourself, and calling that IOU an asset.

In addition, this money we owe to our seniors is not even included in official budget deficit figures. In fiscal year 2006 alone, $185 billion was borrowed from Social Security. The official deficit was reported to be $248 billion. The actual deficit for 2006 would be $433 billion when combining the two. This sort of accounting would land private sector executives in prison for fraud.

Yet this is done every year by the federal government. The truth is that while politicians in Washington differ about what programs to spend Social Security money on, they are united in wanting to spend it on something other than benefits for seniors.

This approach can continue only until Social Security stops running “surpluses” the government can raid. Trustees of Social Security estimate this will happen in 2017. At that time, the amount owed to the Trust Fund will be between $4 trillion and $5.2 trillion, depending on the economy.

When that day of reckoning comes, there will no longer be “excess” payroll tax receipts available to prop up government spending, and the risk of financial crisis will be significant. Instead of forward thinking solutions, politicians are discussing alarming proposals, such as an agreement with Mexico to let their citizens collect social security money intended for our seniors. This would break the bank even sooner. But, current Members of Congress will no longer be in office to face the wrath of seniors and their families when the trust fund goes bankrupt. Instead, they will be retired and enjoying their own plush Congressional pensions.

I have been working to reverse this trend. My Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219 would make sure this Trust Fund has real assets such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions so that in 2017 and beyond, Social Security payments would continue for those who are depending on them.

Congress must take action now, so we can keep the promises we made to our seniors.

Hillary just did..she said there is no 'crisis in Social Security'...she called it a non-issue.

Interventionism? Isolationism? Actually, both.

A few months back, I wrote back-to-back weekly messages regarding globalism and isolationism. In writing those columns, I focused on the fact that our nation’s interventionist foreign policy was precisely what was isolating us from other countries.

Turkey’s recall of their U.S. ambassador in the wake of last week’s resolution, passed in the House Foreign Affairs Committee in condemnation of Turkey, is a perfect example of what I wrote in those columns, as well as what I have been saying for years.

The House has passed similar resolutions for years, praising some foreign countries or political groups while chastising others. It is my policy to vote against resolutions of this sort whenever they have the impact of placing our country in the middle of an internal political problem of some other nation, or involving us in some regional conflict. In fact, this is almost always the specific intent of resolutions of this sort. Often, I am the only Member of Congress to vote against these resolutions.

Some have questioned these votes, arguing that they are meaningless statements of opinion. However, I have always been more skeptical, and careful, about voting for these measures. Last week’s reaction by Turkey , a long term ally and NATO member, shows that Congress should be a lot more restrained in sticking our government’s nose into the affairs of other nations.

Even though I am no fan of the war in Iraq , keeping positive relations with Turkey is important to protecting our troops who have been sent to fight this war. We are likely to need cordial relations with Turkey so that we can get our troops out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible, when the time comes.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my office has been contacted both by the White House and the Turkish Embassy. They know I oppose these types of interventionist resolutions and they know I will not support the current resolution. They also know full well that this particular resolution will only serve to strain an important international relationship our country should be seeking to strengthen.

In this instance, the problem is that many of my colleagues in Congress are more interested in seeking to score political points and proclaim their moral superiority, instead of worrying about our nation’s best interests. Also, in most of these situations, those who oppose the resolution regarding Turkey all-too-often fail to realize that similar resolutions dealing with other nations have the exact same effect. Namely, they isolate our country from the rest of the world.

Even if other countries do not take the rather extreme step of recalling their ambassador, this kind of meddling by Congressional resolution almost always serves to offend governments and political leaders in other counties.

Last week’s events make clear that Congress, and our foreign policy establishment, must reconsider the entire policy of interventionism if we are to avoid further isolation of our nation.

I'm right and all 400+ of my colleagues are wrong!

In this instance I believe he is right, pissing off Turkey at this time is not a smart move on our behalf.

the moral... minority?

It's never been anything but.

In this instance I believe he is right, pissing off Turkey at this time is not a smart move on our behalf.

Depends on your definition, doesn't it!?

or china. or cuba. or....

Cuba? What are they going to do let some more of their citizens flee to the US.

Entangling Alliances

In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.

Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion.

Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by "reviewing Pakistan's foreign aid package" and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.

By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his "allowance," courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.

So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy.

Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.

When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an "allowance" from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.

The True Cost of Taxing and Spending

Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.

Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan , including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.

One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy.

If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays. So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war. This is an especially painful number to me, as the median household income of my constituency in Texas is just $43,000 a year. In other words, war has cost more than an entire year’s worth of income from each middle class Texas family.

What about the impact of these costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90% of the tuition costs to attend a four year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. Obviously, it would far outpace the cost of a community college degree, so vital to so many in the workforce.

But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq , where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.

The Heritage Foundation estimates a $3.5 trillion tax increase would be responsible for 2,200 lost jobs in my district alone, over 70,000 lost jobs across Texas . That's 70,000 Texans in unemployment lines, without health insurance for their families. Some Democrats may not want to spend $3.5 trillion on Iraq , but they do want to raise it in new taxes. And, by digging our economy into a deeper hole, they would create a lot more demand for the social programs they propose.

Tax and spend policies create needs they can never satisfy. A government check does not make up for a lost job. Americans do not want more of this. Americans believe in hard work and self-sufficiency, not standing in line for government hand-outs. We are supposed to be living in a land of opportunity, but opportunities fade fast if more tax and spend policies are enacted. The more Congress meddles in the economy, the bigger the problems get.

Congress should not increase taxes by $3.5 trillion and the administration needs to end the occupation of Iraq with its costs of $3.5 trillion to taxpayers. Let the hardworking American taxpayers keep their money. Families need that $46,000 far more than government does.

"If $3.5 trillion is the true cost of these military adventures, $11,500 is the amount every man, woman and child in this country pays."


Not to mention almost 4,000 troops killed.


But please don't bash Bush, bash McBean for being $1300 over budget.

Ron Paul, savior of us all. He has only a very slightly greater chance than I do in becoming POTUS.

Pain at the Pump

This past week Americans traveled approximately 2 billion miles to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and loved ones. While you cannot put a price on time with family, Americans sure felt the pain of higher fuel prices at the gas pump. It is time to take an honest look at the government's direct and indirect role in inflating those prices.

Taxation is the most direct way government increases Americans' cost at the pump. The national average price of gas now is well over $3.00 per gallon now, $4 in some areas. Federal taxes take 18.4 cents, while state and local taxes average another 28.5 cents per gallon. That's an average of 47 cents per gallon Americans are paying just for government, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Less directly, our loose monetary policy gives taxpayers double jeopardy at the pump, simultaneously increasing prices and undermining purchasing power. Wages always lag behind price increases, making average Americans feel as though they can never quite keep up, never quite get out of debt. Not to mention the ripple effect of higher diesel costs on the trucking industry. When trucking and shipping is more expensive, everything is more expensive.

The indirect costs government imposes on gas prices are much more serious. A major bottleneck that causes gas prices to surge is our very meagre and vulnerable refinery capacity due mostly to regulatory red tape. Environmental regulations and litigation have kept our existing refinery capacity barely adequate. In fact, no new refineries have been built since the 70's and these are operating at capacity, which makes our gasoline market especially vulnerable as demonstrated by skyrocketing gas prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when many coastal oil facilities were brought to a halt. In addition, many foreign refineries don't have the ability to produce the specialized blends of gasoline mandated by our government, and therefore 90% of our gasoline is refined in the United States under extreme regulatory burden. When our domestic refineries are damaged or jeopardized, there are few options other than soaring prices or long lines.

I've introduced The Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415) to deal with some of these issues. My bill would suspend Federal fuel taxes when prices rise above $3.00 a gallon, giving some immediate relief at the pump. It would also repeal misguided legislation that causes more investment in attorneys and nuisance litigation than in actually producing affordable gasoline and strengthening our refining capacity. Also, it would open up ANWR for oil exploration and repeal the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling.

Much of government intervention in the oil industry in the past has been counter-productive and has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for every mile Americans can still afford to travel to be with family. I am working hard in Congress to reverse the costly trend of government interference and return markets, including oil markets, to true economic freedom.

Thank you Ron Paul, when this bill passes I'll be able to save 18.4 cents a gallon.

How is the government going to keep gas prices below $3 a gallon?

If they do that gas will be $4 a gallon.

Hopefully Cheney will be ok.

I'm praying.

So why would they go down if they take the breaks away.