By RonPaul.com on January 31, 2005
by Ron Paul
Every parent in America should be made aware of a presidential initiative called the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.” This commission issued a report last year calling for the mandatory mental health screening of American schoolchildren, meaning millions of kids will be forced to undergo psychiatric screening whether their parents consent or not. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decent society. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has no legitimate authority to interfere in your family’s intimate health matters. Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, and the drugs regularly prescribed produce serious side effects, especially in children’s developing brains.
The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter for parents, children, and their doctors, not government. Unfortunately, however, the mental health screening initiative received funding from House and Senate appropriators in the 2005 federal budget. This funding allows states to create or expand mental health screening programs with your tax dollars. More importantly, the commission recommends a broader federal program in the near future. Last fall I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a year-end spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office was overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.
Accordingly, the first bill I introduced this year bill forbids federal funds from being used for any mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents. The bill is known as “The Parental Consent Act of 2005,” or HR 181. This legislation strikes a vital blow for parents who oppose government interference with their parental authority, and strengthens the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. It is important to understand that powerful interests, namely federal bureaucrats and pharmaceutical lobbies, are behind the push for mental health screening in schools.
There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to run our lives, and the pharmaceutical industry is eager to sell psychotropic drugs to millions of new customers in American schools. Only tremendous public opposition will suffice to overcome the lobbying and bureaucratic power behind the president’s New Freedom Commission. Your help is needed. Please tell everyone you know about HR 181, and ask them to call their representatives and senators in Washington to voice strong opposition to forced mental health screening. Demand that the Department of Health and Human Services receive no tax dollars in this year’s appropriation bill for screening programs, and that states receive no federal dollars for programs of their own. Refer to my congressional website for articles from September 2004 about mental health screening, and sobering statistics about anti-depressant drugs and kids in the text of HR 181. Most of all, talk with your friends, family, and colleagues about the underlying issue of whether the state owns your kids. Remind them that freedom can be maintained only when state power is limited, especially when it comes to fundamental freedoms over our bodies and minds.

Processing your request, Please wait....
Posted in Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk | Tagged Psychiatric Screening |
By RonPaul.com on January 24, 2005
by Ron Paul
Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam. The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending– and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs– millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things. In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years.
Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years. Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money will be there earning interest, right? If your money is put away in a trust fund account with your name on it, what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist, and Social Security “surpluses” are nothing more than an accounting ledger showing that contributions exceeded benefits paid for a given calendar year– not that the excess was put aside. Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs. Since these programs and overall spending keep increasing, the government can’t give up any sources of tax revenue.
Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades. The administration speaks of private accounts, but government-managed investment of Social Security funds is not privatization at all. True capitalism by definition operates without government interference, and we should oppose further government involvement in the financial markets. After all, which government officials will decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles are approved? Which politicians will you trust to decide what your portfolio may contain? Imagine the lobbyists fighting over which special interests will have their favored investments approved for Social Security accounts. Political favoritism, rather than market performance, will determine what investments are allowed, and Social Security in essence will become a huge source of taxpayer-provided investment capital.
If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent.

Processing your request, Please wait....
Posted in Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk | Tagged Social Security |
By RonPaul.com on January 17, 2005
by Ron Paul
Two weeks ago I discussed the growing sentiment among conservatives in America that we should consider getting out of the United Nations. Much of this sentiment has been generated by the oil-for-food scandal, but this strikes me as misguided. Sovereignty is the issue, not scandals, and many newly-minted critics of the UN were happy to support the organization when it did our foreign policy bidding. Why in the world are we surprised by this oil-for-food scandal?
Power without accountability naturally leads to corruption, and the UN is nothing if not unaccountable. Just as Washington politicians are too far removed from the Americans they purport to represent, UN bureaucrats are utterly distanced from the “world citizens” they wish to govern. The UN is nascent global government, no matter what its supporters claim– it attempts to issue legally binding decrees. Centralized, faraway government is always less accountable than localized government. The average American has no say whatsoever over what happens at the UN, even though he’s forced to pay taxes to support it. Given the reality that UN bureaucrats operate totally outside the bounds of any national laws or oversight, we hardly should be surprised when the organization becomes arrogant, corrupt, and mismanaged. The real problem, however, is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept.
The ultimate test for the ostensible validity of any government is whether its authority comes from the people it governs, rather than from the use of force or arbitrary edicts. In other words, legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. This is the fundamental democratic principle. It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. Yet so many of those on the political left in America, who claim to believe in democracy above all, vigorously champion the inherently undemocratic UN. We cannot reconcile American sovereignty with our membership in the UN. Neither the UN nor any other international body has authority to make laws that bind the American people.
Americans have not consented to laws passed by foreign individuals or bodies. American citizens abroad, of course, are subject to the laws of their host nation. At home, however, American citizens are subject only to our domestic laws. Congress, and Congress alone, has the constitutional power to craft our federal laws. While constitutionally-ratified treaties can be legitimate, no treaty can legally usurp the basic function of Congress by transferring legislative authority to an international body. Not even the wildest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress simply to abandon its lawmaking power to another body. Yet this is what UN advocates would have us believe when the UN attempts to dictate or influence our domestic labor, environmental, trade, tax, and gun laws– as it already has.

Processing your request, Please wait....
Posted in Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk | Tagged UN, United Nations |
By RonPaul.com on January 10, 2005
by Ron Paul
In the past ten days, Americans have donated several hundred million dollars to help Asian tsunami victims. Despite this outpouring of support for private charities, the Bush administration has pledged to send at least $350 million in federal aid, a figure that is open-ended and certain to climb. It’s admirable that Americans have been so willing to open their hearts and pocketbooks for the victims of this enormous tragedy, but it’s not the job of the federal government to make a show of generosity to the world with your tax dollars. Remember, government officials cannot be generous or charitable, because the money they dispense does not belong to them. The original coalition of donor governments has been disbanded, meaning the United Nations will control all government-funded relief efforts going forward.
Surely the oil-for-food scandal demonstrates that UN officials are the worst possible stewards of the tsunami relief funds, yet that’s precisely who will be overseeing the expenditure of our $350 million. Bush administration officials have promised to keep a tight watch over how those tax dollars are spent, but the truth is that we cannot control this money once it’s sent overseas for UN administration. We are mistaken when we assume governments must be the central organizing agents of the relief efforts. Private-sector charities and free-market social cooperation are the real saviors in any natural disaster, despite the intense desire of politicians to be seen as heroes on a white horse– heroes who use other people’s money. Government-to-government transfers are inherently inefficient, and adding the UN as a middleman will only ensure that even less of the money actually reaches those who need it most. Money is critical for disaster relief, but it is not the only issue. Efficient organization of relief services is equally important, and efficiency means circumventing the government bureaucracies that tend to boss people around after natural disasters. Doctors Without Borders, a private group known for providing medical care in poor nations, actually requested that people stop sending them money last week. Their operating model relies on very low overhead and complete independence from governments, and they understand that throwing more and more money at a disaster is not necessarily the best approach.
Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explained the problem of government “generosity” for disaster relief in the context of the 2004 Florida hurricanes: “The whole enterprise of disaster aid has become one of the great rackets of modern government. Today we have the disgusting spectacle of senators and presidents coming to visit weather-injured places, as if they have within their capacity the ability to size up damage and make provisions for making it all correct. We are supposed to believe that they know more about the proper course of action than insurance adjusters and property owners.” “If we had honest politicians, they would say: ‘Of course I’m sorry about what happened to that beach in Florida, but my presence there would only distract from the essential work being done by owners and their insurers.
I don’t know anything about the topic, and even if I did, I would not want to steal from some to give to others to realize my political priorities.” The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can. But let’s get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please.
»crosslinked«

Processing your request, Please wait....
Posted in Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk | Tagged Charity, Tsunami |
By RonPaul.com on January 3, 2005
by Ron Paul
Let me take this opportunity to wish readers of this weekly column a very happy New Year. I appreciate your willingness to work for liberty by staying informed about the actions of your government, and I hope you will redouble your efforts this year to spread the message of freedom. Remember to visit my congressional website- www.house.gov/paul – throughout 2005 to find new weekly messages and speeches, which you are free to distribute to your family and friends.
You may have heard one United Nations official comment that America is being stingy with its offer of millions of dollars in aid for tsunami victims. His attitude toward your money is typical of globalist bureaucrats, who ultimately view the UN as a means for transferring wealth from America to other nations. Americans are very generous people, and undoubtedly will donate tens or even hundreds of millions to private organizations to help the victims of this terribly tragedy in Asia. We hardly need the UN to chide us about our supposed lack of generosity. The oil-for-food scandal brewing in the United Nations also has provoked long-overdue denunciations of the organization from several pundits and politicians on the right. Of course most of you didn’t need a scandal to convince you that the UN is anti-American, or that it egregiously wastes our tax dollars. I’m glad more Republicans are finally catching on to what many Constitutionalists, libertarians, Birchers, Goldwaterites, and religious conservatives have been saying for decades: we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of America. I certainly agree with these newly minted critics, having advocated getting out for twenty-five years.
This growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the organization is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution. Obviously, many of those now calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. Few Americans realize, however, that the resolution passed by Congress cited various UN resolutions more than twenty times as justification for invading Iraq– in contrast to the media images of President Bush “going it alone” and disregarding the UN. So despite the anti-UN bluster from the right, a Republican president’s stated reason for invading Iraq was that it failed to obey UN resolutions!
This approach gives us the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we grant credibility to the ideas of international law and global government– signaling our willingness to surrender precious sovereignty in the bargain. Yet we gain little in exchange. Other nations still consider us only too willing to ignore the international rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain deeply mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty for every nation.

Processing your request, Please wait....
Posted in Ron Paul's Writings, Texas Straight Talk | Tagged UN, United Nations |