Skip to comments.The Ron Paul Myth
Posted on 09/01/2011 12:44:44 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama
One of the lies Ron Paul's more vocal supporters (his army of cyberstormtroopers) will tell you until they're blue in the face is that the Shame of Texas has a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. They'll hiss, scratch, and burn a cross on your blog for daring to point out the obvious. In other words, they're like Chairman Obama's Drones, big on fascisti passion, small on critical thinking.
Let's take a stroll down Memory Hole Lane, shall we ? Here is the text of Ayatollah RuPaul's interview with Neil Cavuto of FOX News back in 2009:
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Speaking of a lot of money, the battle about the money they're spending on Capitol Hill and, ironically, this guy is being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn't fair.
But we thought it only fair to give him his due and explain what is going on. I'm talking about Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
Congressman, the rap is that you're a porker, that that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.
But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
CAVUTO: Well, then, who who who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?
PAUL: I have no idea. But the most important thing is to have transparency.
If you don't earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there's no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial. But we need more earmarks.
The reason that we don't have didn't have earmarks, you know, in that $350 billion on TARP funds...
PAUL: We needed to earmark every single thing. We need to earmark every single thing the Fed does. So, this whole thing, this charade this is a charade.
CAVUTO: No, no, I understand.
But you know what? It just strikes people as a little weird, Congressman, because, you know, you champion and rail against government waste. And I know you rejected and voted against this package. But, yet, your constituents are going to benefit to the tune of more than $73 million in various projects from this package.
So, it's kind of like you're having your cake and eating it, too.
PAUL: But but, Neil Neil, you're you're missing the whole point.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to it's like a a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years if ever.
CAVUTO: But would you argue, then, sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what's out of control?
PAUL: Oh, no, no. He he he totally misunderstands that. That's grandstanding.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows...
CAVUTO: You're right about...
PAUL: OK. But then I'm right about the whole issue.
CAVUTO: But are you saying, then are you saying, then, Congressman, that the moneys that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City, that rehab center that that's money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?
PAUL: It's the kind I don't vote for, because I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people.
If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative.
But, if you put an earmark for a bridge in Iraq, it's not called an earmark. If you build military equipment in somebody's city...
CAVUTO: So, you don't think their requests are wastes? You don't think their requests are wastes?
PAUL: Well, no, it's it's it shouldn't be done. There's a better way to do it.
PAUL: But, if you're going to spend the money, the Congress has the responsibility. It's better to spend it on a bridge here than spend it on a bridge in Iraq, and blow it up, and then build it up again.
Those are the kind of earmarks they don't count.
CAVUTO: All right.
PAUL: So, you have to count...
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.
Now to be fair to Reichsfuhrer Paul, he does make a lot of sense in some spots in the above interview. He was a 1000% right about TARP and building bridges in Iraq. No one can argue those points, and I applaud him for saying it. (And he also took a shot at the horrid John McLame, so kudos on that, too.) However, as I've written in a previous column, his view of public spending is almost Marxist. (Pork spending is in no way, shape, or form a "tax rebate".)
Not only is that knd of talk Marxist-lite, it's also something the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, would have vehemently disagreed with.
In 1792, Madison said:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor;they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police,would be thrown under the power of Congress."
(This statement was made in response to a bill that was proposed in Congress to subsidize cod fishermen. Even in the 1790's, there were slobs who wanted to "spread the wealth around.")
Interesting note: I found this quote in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods, Jr. (Another "Libertarian" who has a fondness for appearing on Iran's Islamonazi state-run television station, but that's another rant for another time.) It's also a book Sheikh Ali-Paul wrote a blurb for. He writes:
"Knowing our past is essential if we are to preserve our freedoms. Professor Woods's work heroically rescues real history from the politcally correct memory hole. Every American should read this book."
Maybe the good doctor should read this book again. We the People get it, he sure doesn't.
I only got a few lines in, and I imagined Less Nessman, five-time winner of the Buckeye News Hawk Award from WKRP in Cincinnatti was speaking, and couldn’t continue.
Did you diagree with me ? It’s cool if you did.
That he is no strict constructionist, but a pork-loving big spender? I agree with you. That he’s an incoherent lunatic? That’s also pretty apparent.
I’ll be the first to admit at times my humor is rather childish. Sometimes, I cross the line. Feel free to blast me for that anytime, FRiend. Eventually, I’ll learn.
I’m just worried that this loon is going to cost us the 2012 election.
How do Israeli Conservatives view Paul ?
The funny thing he was wrong about the whole issue.
This man is dangerous. No, he’s not going to win the nomination. No, the American people aren’t going to elect him. At the same time, he can do incredible damage to the Conservative Movement.
Before long, the arrogant and lazy media will start tying this whack job to the rest of us. When that happens, it will set us back for decades.
Generally, he’s not on the radar. Everything going on in the states is happening “over there,” and that especially applies to moonbats like Ron Paul, who isn’t even happening.
Perhaps I’m getting worked up over nothing....
Why do you think Congress should write Obama a blank check with no specific instructions on how to spend the money?
Why do you support efforts to further consolidate Obama’s dictatorial power at the expense of Congress?
Are you some kind of Obamabot?
“Are you some kind of Obamabot?”
I quoted James Madison, so obviously not.
I think you’re missing the point.
It appears to me that Madison was opposing indefinite spending, not deferring discretion to the executive branch.
E, Israel should be paying attention to ron paul. His attitude towards Israel intersects with islam’s attitude and his reent appearance on iran TV is nothing short of incitement from a sitting US Congresman.
He might be a loon,but who in iran’s government isn’t? Who knows how iranians perceive his support for them and his endorsement of their *right* to have nukes? It is not a far stretch for them to extrapolate that HIS attitude reflects Congress’s attitude as well.
No one has called paul out except for Allen West. Congress has not spoken out in any way against what paul said or did by appearing on iran TV and outing Israel’s nuclear program. The silence has been deafening.
American networks are picking him up and giving him facetime. This is not a good thing.
The money is already being confiscated and given out, he's against that. But after the government has already done that, why should Ron Paul's district be the only one that does not see a return of some of its taxation?
To put it another way, imagine a thief steals money from a dozen people. He then promises to return some of the money to the folks he stole it from if they ask for it. It looks like Ron Paul's critics would have him refrain from asking for some of it back on the principle that he doesn't support stealing in the first place, and stand by that principle as the other 11 people see some of their money returned to them (including his).
It doesn't make sense to me. Would be glad to hear someone explain "why" he should not ask for some of the money to be returned to his constituents. He's against the theft in the first place, but wants to make sure he gets as much back as he can when the thief offers to return some of it.
Do you believe that ending all foreign aid, including the annual billions to Israel and the billions we send to Israel’s enemies, is an anti-Israel policy?
I'm trying to understand your logic here. Are you saying that for Ron Paul to be a constructionist in your eyes he would have to not only vote against the appropriations bills that give us the pork in the first place, but also ask for no earmarks for his district at the same time?
Isn't that like rejecting the return of your stolen property to you because you're against stealing?
Here is what I KNOW. When Benjamin Netanyahu was PM the first time, he made it his number one priority to pay off Israel’s debt to the US so Israel would not be able to be manipulated by US foreign policy and favoritism to arafat. Israel was well on its way to doing exactly that when clinton blew him out of the water. The US WANTS Israel in debt to us, and because of it, Israel is on suicide watch.
When Israel started its own aircraft industry, the US destroyed it. Anything Israel does is micromanaged by an islamist state department.
Having said that, that is not my objection to ron paul. My objection to him, is his treasonous willingness to go on enemy television and sell his own country, US, out.
That he is a notorious antisemite is not news. Talk is cheap. It is his ACTIONS that I detest.
Also, can you please define "enemy television"?
Iran’s press TV.
It’s his attitude towards this behavior the the problem.
Do you understand the reason why he puts in earmarks and then votes against the appropriations bills?
The last time I checked, public spending is not a “tax rebate.” The individual doesn’t benefit, only the “collective” allegedly does.
In the interview with Cavuto, Paul sounded like a Marxist.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes Ron Paul says great things. (At one point, I was one of his supporters. Why else would I read a book by Thomas Woods ?) But he also says a lot of stupid things. It’s the stupid things, which greatly outnumber the good things.
Ron Paul has also voted for a tax hike.
“In addition to never voting for an unbalanced budget, Ron Paul often touts his record of never having voted for a tax increase. Some people are arguing that this streak ended yesterday when Paul, joined by Paul-influenced Republicans Jimmy Duncan and Walter Jones, voted for the House Democrats’ extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.”
“In the space of 24 hours, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has voted for tax hikes, against censure for Charlie Rangel, and defended Julian Assange.”
I don't think he was being literal. It is a way for taxation to get back to the local district from where it came. His point was that it is better for spending to go back to the local districts than to stay in Washington.
“I don’t think he was being literal.”
I do, especially since he’s voted for tax hikes. Please check out the links I’ve posted on this thread.
Ron Paul has voted for tax increases? News to me. I’ll look at anything you have.
I don't think the extension would count as voting for a tax increase. He's on the record supporting a repeal of the 16th Amendment. Semantics over what is and what's not a tax cut on the Bush extensions are just that.
He's one of the good guys on taxation, and to suggest otherwise is just stupid.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I just don't see how one can call Ron Paul a supporter of higher taxation.
He wants to eliminate the 16th Amendment and the IRS.
So if he gets back more pork for his state than the taxes that were extracted from it, he’s still just returning stolen money, or doing some stealing himself from some other state? Furthermore, was the money returned to the taxpayers from whom it was actually filched, or to some project that abstractly benefits “his state,” and therefore also indirectly the individual taxpayers who actually paid the taxes, even though they may never visit the museum or cross the bridge, or chill in the park. This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I can't speak for his district, but the state of Texas as a whole only gets back 94% of what it puts in as far as taxation is concerned.
This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I don't understand your issue, I truly don't. You seem to be saying that the money should stay in Washington, and that to be truly consistent, he can't just vote against the appropriations bills, he has to reserve no return of tax money to his district.
So is it better to have the money stay in Washington, or better for some of it to return to the district in some form. If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no income tax and no IRS, but he's working within the reality of the situation.
How about not send it there in such large gobs. The money doesn’t stay in Washington. It goes there because Washington needs it to support all the pet projects that each lawmaker brings home to his district or state, as well as gigantic entitlement programs, and a military that has been known in the past to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer. Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.
It requires a little discipline on the part of lawmakers. They bring pork to their district so that they can use it as a plus for their reelection campaigns. Many of them run unopposed. Those that do have a race to win are in office. Their opponents are not in a position to outspend them in the halls of Congress. So to win reelection, they can instead enact wise laws, support limitations on government spending, make lofty speeches.
Or they can appropriate pork based on the erroneous supposition that the money starts out in Washington and will stay there if they don’t bring home the bacon, and that’s the way the game is played, whether Texas is giving more than it’s getting or getting more than it’s giving.
“his reent appearance on iran TV is nothing short of incitement from a sitting US Congresman.”
Pardon my ignorance. I didn’t know he was doing that. That comes dangerously close to the Hanoi Jane line between free speech and treason.
I poked around looking at the issue, and it looks like Paul did appear on Al-Jazeera, but was only quoted by Iranian state TV after his debate appearance. I don’t like the idea of appearing on Al-Jazeera, but it’s not quite to the same degree as appearing on Iran’s state channel.
There is more. I have to search to refind the links. there have been several articles posted here on FR with links. One specifically dealt with Israel’s nukes and the poster was nearly hysterical over it.
I wonder how they identified themselves.
How is voting “for an extension of tax cuts” voting “for a tax increase”? It sounds like the opposite.
But I don't understand why you think Paul's district should be the only one that doesn't receive anything.
Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.
I honestly can't think of one Congressman who has lived up to that principle more than Paul, regardless of whether or not he makes earmarks. The money has already been taxed. Whether or not Congresspeople send it back to their district will have no effect on the rates of taxation.
His non-interventionism is much too spiced with hippie pacifism for me, but I can't seem to sympathize with your point about earmarks. I completely understand why he puts them in there, and why votes against the appropriations bills that contain them.
The money has already been taxed for fy 2010, and the budget was passed in 2009. In 2010, they wrote the budget for 2011, for which taxes will be collected in 2012. Until the tax money rolls in, it will be financed with bonds. In each of those budgets, there is pork, earmarks, whatever you want to call it, along with the larger scale thievery along those lines, all of which come to substantially more than 1% of any budget. Strict construction of the Constitution requires that Congress only enact laws and spend money for things that are necessary and proper for the exercise of its specifically enumerated powers. Paul doesn’t do that. Neither does any other Congressman. But Ron Paul claims to, and that’s a myth. I rest my case.
IF the earmarked miney was going back to his district as say, a tax rebate, that his district could use as they sa fit, that is one thing. But that isn’t how earmarks work. The money is designated for specific projects, many of which are vanity, most of which are a waste and a drain, even on the district when the earmarked money runs out. Remember the “Big Dig”? The “Bridge to Nowhere”? The study of pork rinds?
‘scuse the typos.
But he votes against the spending bills, so if every Congressman voted like him, there would be no earmarks. I rest my case.
Precisely. That's logical for anyone who wants to understand it. But you have to understand the motivation for those calling Ron Paul "a hypocrite" on this earmark issue.
Ron Paul has always been, not just a winner, but a formidable winner in his District. To try to make Ron Paul less electable, his political opponents -- both Democratic and Republican -- tried to smear and scare Ron Paul into not asking for earmarks for his District. It didn't work. He isn't an idiot. He didn't fall for it. He won reelection to the House in the last election with 70% of the vote.
Since he's been running for president, Ron Paul's detractors have taken up to using the same old propaganda they tried in his District. They understand it. They just want to recruit anyone who doesn't.
When the good doctor voted to raise taxes on the rich and sided with the Democrat Party on the Bush Tax cuts, he voted to raise taxes on the so-called rich.
It’s cheap and easy to vote against something you know will pass with or without you. I’d like to see a consistent effort by lawmakers to write an alternative bill without all the tricks. They only do this every once in a while to make a statement, like in 1994, or when President Ron kept the spending from growing faster than GNP for a while (”Cuts” in Washingspeak). Mean time the game goes on, as it has long before the Tea Party existed. If there were a regular annual rebuttal budget, one day there will be a President who will adopt it, who might get elected based on a promise to sign that and not the pork budget.
That is a lie. Paul voted for the Democrat bill to cut taxes on the middle class and he also voted for a related Republican bill to cut taxes for everyone. Paul always vote to cut taxes. Stop lying.
Americans for Tax Reform comments below:
“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”
Are you serious? Are the Paulbots on this page serious? They talk flippantly about nothing being wrong with earmarks, while holding up Paul as the beacon of economic Conservatism. They always use terms like “well, RP supports this, or RP said that”. They always send youtube videos to prove their points, even when his voting record is contrary to what he says. And, his happy supporters just drink in the kool-aid. Ok, so earmarks might be just 1% of the budget, but he says that he is just returning the money taken from the people of his district BACK to those people. Yet, he fails to mention that this earmark money comes from OTHER taxpayers like you and me. He is against waste, but votes for projects in his district ALL while saying he is doing this because he Constituents want him to do so. Then, he turns around and says it should be his job to appropriate money for his district, but claims to be a steadfast supporter of states right...so, why not leave this money to the STATE to decide? RP is stark raving mad and his supporters are worse.
BTW, as someone pointed out earlier, I am sick and tired of hearing the Paulbots say “and RP has never voted for a tax hike”. The problem is that he vote for TONS of earmarks (wasteful spending) KNOWING full well whether or not a bill will pass. This is nothing more than politics at its worst. Sure, he doesn’t vote for the bill in the end because he doesn’t have to...it makes him look fiscally responsible. In the meantime, he is up with Pelosi packing the bill, that he will later oppose, with TONS of earmarks. Hypocrisy.