Saturday, January 5, 2008

Send Me Your Poor, Your Tired, and Your Hungry -- and Tell Them to Use the Front Door

Immigration reform is a hot topic this election season. The United States prides itself in being the land of opportunity and a refuge for the persecuted. This country was built on the backs of thousands of legal -- I'll say it again -- legal immigrants who have come here to build a better life for themselves and for their families.

However, the rampant influx of illegal immigrants not only threatens our national security, it threatens our way of life -- the very way of life immigrants seek to avail themselves of -- by putting an incredible strain on our infrastructure and our resources. Ron Paul believes we should put an end to illegal immigration and has a plan for doing so:

"Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem.

We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages. They are subsidized by our government to do so.

Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance.

Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled "not relevant" to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance.
The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship. This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty.

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America ."

Friday, January 4, 2008

Ron Paul Beats Giuliani in Iowa Caucus

The results are in and Congressman Ron Paul posted a strong finish in the Iowa caucus with 10% of the vote compared to Rudy Giuliani's 4%. This occured in a state that leans heavily toward the Christian Conservative side and in a state where Congressman Paul spent significantly less money than his rivals. Although Congressman Paul finished in 5th place, his showing in Iowa is consistent with straw poll results that, in addition to predicting a 5th place finish in Iowa, also predict a 1st place win in many other states.

Here's what Wolf Blitzer of CNN had to say about Ron Paul's results in Iowa:

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

What if April 15th Was Just Another Day?

What if, each payday, your paycheck was bigger because you got to keep more of what you earned? What would you do with that money? In Washington, there's a lot of talk about cutting taxes, but the money never seems to materialize in our pay checks.

Congressman Ron Paul has a practical, common-sense approach to fiscal responsibility that will benefit all Americans. Here's a statement from Congressman Paul back on October 16, 2006"

"In Washington we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts, but the rhetoric does not always match the reality. For most Americans, taxes remain too complex and too high. After the tumult of the upcoming midterm election, it is imperative that Congress gets back to basics and addresses our terrible tax system.

Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes – rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury.

Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us-- and more each year-- the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.

I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system.

The question to ask yourself is this: What would I do with the money withheld from my paycheck each month? The answer is simple: you would spend, save, or invest the money, all of which do more for the economy and society than sending it to Washington. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

Tax relief is important, but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts- and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending.

Cutting spending would not be hard if Congress simply showed the political will to tackle the problem. I’m not talking about cutting the rate at which government spending grows, but cutting the actual amount of money spent by the federal government in a single year.

If federal spending grows at 5% rather than 7% one year, that’s hardly a great achievement on the part of Congress. The current federal budget of around $2.7 trillion could be cut to $2.5 trillion quite easily. The vast majority of Americans would not even notice. But we must begin chipping away at the federal budget if we hope to address the underlying problem of government debt."

Sunday, December 30, 2007

More than Just a Band-Aid

Congressman Ron Paul has been an OB/GYN doctor for the last 40 years and has delivered over 4,000 babies. He was also a flight surgeon during the Vietnam war. More than any other candidate running in the 2008 Presidential election, he comes from the most qualified background to truly handle our ailing health care system.

In this two-part video with Julie Judd of the Kaiser Family Foundation, Dr. Paul goes into detail about what he would do to ease the burden of health care for all Americans.

Part I



Part II