Posted on 03/13/2009 6:25:50 AM PDT by ToddThurman
What? Ron Paul not making any sense? Now I have heard everything. The video is from a recent appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show. The main argument of the segment was earmarks. Earmarks are indeed a problem with Members of Congress; they can’t help themselves with their pet projects.
(Excerpt) Read more at toddthurman.wordpress.com ...
Just to save everyone some time, here is the latest fight between the Paulistias and the anti-Paulistias on his earmark comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204751/posts
Read Ron Paul’s book “The Revolution”. While we hear the concept of “thousands of earmarks”, it is a small portion of the federal budget. The problem is that most of it is not earmarked, and goes into that big federal budget pot where it is spent on ??? He also says we should stop going after small frivolous things NEA. That’s a drop in the federal bucket.
He says in his book that the whole earmark debate is a distraction to keep us from focusing on the size of government. An earmark to build a road is taxpayer money spent on taxpayer use. A federal budget item to give billions to an unnecessary and unaccountable gov’t agency is what we should fight.
But who is fighting to close the Dept of Education, and countless other federal agencies with no reason to exist? Nobody-—we’re all arguing about a million dollar earmark in the face of multi-billions in gov’t growth.
Ron Paul is too smart to be president.
I wrote my reply before finishing the video because I know Ron Paul’s writings and knew this would be consistent. Earmarks are 1% of the budget according to the video. That’s his point. Ron Paul has his sights on the other 99%.
Well I sure am glad you pointed that out, now I know we don’t have to get upset when Hilldog proposes more Woodstock museums, or other congressmen pork up on hog smell research, shrimp farming, or lizard habitats.. it is so small, the Constitutional authority doesn’t matter.. glad to know that..
I don’t think Ron Paul honestly thinks there is constitutional authority for the earmarks. If he does, then he is wrong. I always thought his thinking is-—if your house is on fire, do you tell the firefighters to save your mailbox? I don’t think the fed gov’t should pay for shrimp farming ,etc. I just think Ron Paul needs to be more explicit on the other 99% of spending.
I also think of his position this way——I oppose the federal mortgage interest deduction. I oppose federal tax breaks for charity. I oppose federal tax credits for having children. But I take them. Why? Because my tax rate assumes I will take these deductions, and if I don’t, I am taxed higher. (full disclosure: I am a fair taxer)
The earmarks are there, and they are the one part of the budget that has a destination in something that will do somebody some good. The rest just bloats the government Shrimp farming doesn’t destroy our freedom. The Dept of Education and countless others do destroy freedom. Why not spend our time and effort there?
They all destroy our freedom, even small, it is still collectivism. It is big brother deciding who and what your earnings should support. It is part of an overall collectivist, unconstitutional culture, a culture that, while Dr. Paul claims to be against, plays the game along with everyone else.
He reminds me of the character in Atlas Shrugged (Boyle, Doyle?) who always *talked* the merits of free markets, but was damn sure to play the collectivist game bigger and stronger than everyone else because ‘that’s just the way it was’.
“Just to save everyone some time, here is the latest fight between the Paulistias and the anti-Paulistias on his earmark comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204751/posts";
My post #101 in that thread:
The appropriation/earmark process is rather confusing. I googled this to see if I could also understand a little better. This is from Wikipedia (I don’t know how reliable Wiki is...):
“Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency’s budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of the Congress having to identify themselves or the project.”
So, it sounds to me like the money has already been allocated to a budget in the appropriations process and earmarks direct how part of that budget is specifically spent. Voting “no” on the appropriation and then adding earmarks for your constituents does not seem to be a contradiction or hypocritical.
the money has already been allocated to a budget
The money is added to the budget, but is outside the needed operational expenses of the department. It is created from a baseline of the operational expenses plus the previous year's earmarks. Earmarks don't eat into the operational expenses, it is part of a culture in DC of adding more and more to the budget, over and above the needed operational expense to continue to cover these pet projects. Politicians cop out and say "Well, it is part of the budget anyway", hoping people don't realize that it is part of the budget because of earmarks the previous year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so on, always nudging the baseline upward. The culture in DC actually penalizes saving money as it lowers the baseline and budgets are cut, so politicians always try to take as much pork as possible. Others like to point out, well it is only 1% or so (after the recent bailout and TARP packages, I would bet it is creeping closer to 10% if you count those..), but even at 1%, dropping that each year would reduce the baseline instead of increasing it. Dropping it 1% each year instead of growing it 1% each year could result in a 20% decrease in the budget over what it would have grown, in a decade.
The appropriations process determines how much money is allocated to a budget. Ron Paul votes NO on these appropriations.
Earmarks only specify how some of that appropriated money is spent.
I don’t think it needs to be any harder to understand than that.
But continuing to allocate money from the appropriations continues to increase the baseline, no matter how he votes, he is still responsible in part for the ever increasing baseline (substance over symbolic vote). If the money is not all spent form the appropriations, it reduces the following year’s baseline.
“If the money is not all spent form the appropriations, it reduces the following year’s baseline.”
The money WILL be spent, just without any local say in HOW it’s spent.
As long as we have politicians willing to continue to play the game, you are right.
“As long as we have politicians willing to continue to play the game, you are right.”
No argument there Mike. I think that’s why the politicians like to keep the focus on earmarks instead of the real meat of the argument, which is the initial theft.
Thanks for the reasoned debate.
I was pointing out his misconception of tax credits. he likes to say he doesn’t vote for spending, but votes for “every tax credit.” Tax credits are spending by another name, especially when tax credits are given to those who don’t pay taxes.
Try not to take Paul to seriously, he has become a mirror of what people themselves believe. He is, himself, a comedy of errors... Phil Gramm said of him once, that he never can even get one of his bills out of committee because ‘they are so poorly written and lack any detail as to how to accomplish anything’... he reminds me of a coffee house philosopher.
I noticed the other thread where earmarks were peddled as tax refunds. That must mean every single taxpaying constituent submits an earmark, in which case his district sets the record for sucking at the government teet.
LOL
Paul is a hypocrite of the highest order.
This is just plain stupid, unless your goal is to have the GOP be the minority party for a very long time. But then I see that you've been here at FR for less than two months... so maybe that IS your goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.