I tend not to drink sugary drinks. How does Ron Paul hose the taxpayer? Does he not vote against government spending? If the majority of Congress voted like Ron Paul would there be more government spending, less, or the same? What happens to money in the budget that is not allocated by the Congress? Does it go back to the taxpayer, or does it go to the executive branch for their discretionary use?
Do you need me to show you again.
If the majority of Congress voted like Ron Paul would there be more government spending, less, or the same?
Ron Paul placed #106, just above the democrats on voting for the 50 anti-pork amendments. He has his own huge wasteful pork projects. He's a porker just like the majority of the congress.
What happens to money in the budget that is not allocated by the Congress? Does it go back to the taxpayer, or does it go to the executive branch for their discretionary use?
By your logic then ALL congressman are off the hook.
Now, go away and quit making excuses for him.
It doesn't matter if he votes against it. As he gives his contributes a little wink, he puts them in bills he knows will pass (and as it was shown above in another post, he does, at times, vote for the pork). If more in congress had a record like Paul, it would most likely be the same. Paul has never once passed a bill that reduces the size of government. Phil Gramm said once that Ron Paul's bills never make it past committee because they are so poorly written and they contain absolutely no detail as to how to accomplish anything contained in the bill. What happens if the money goes in the budget but is not spent, simply put, it is not taken from the treasury. It is a myth it goes to the executive branch for 'discretionary' spending. The Executive branch cannot write spending bills, only Congress. There are unique bills that provide targeted discretionary spending (such as military spending bills- Constitutionally part of the Executive branch- Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.)
For example, if you have a budget for $40million for a farm bill, and after all the pork line items are added, and the budget is distributed, if $39million is the only amount that is spent, then next year's budget baseline is reduced to $39million. Each year, what is actually spent creates a budget baseline for the following year. Anyone who has ever worked for the government, especially in a contract position as I have, understands this. You are pretty much told to never go under budget to guarantee the following year's budget isn't reduced.
By adding pork to the budget, it increases that baseline year after year. Not adding pork to be spent, would reduce that baseline. Paul, being one of the biggest porkers in Texas, has very much a similar responsibility of the budget being the way it is.
His little game of giving a wink and symbolically voting against it is just that, symbolism. The substance is he is, like every other congressman, responsible for the actual money being added into the budget.
He is not the hero people like to make him out. His ACU Rating is the same as John McCain's and his rating with the Club for Growth is actually in the range of folks like Sheila Jackson Lee.
I really suggest you get past the symbolism of what he says and look at the substance of what he does and the results of his actions.
We know now that a lot of what he has preached over the years in his newsletters where not his thoughts but those of a ghostwriter (probably Lewellan Rockwell) and last week, it was disclosed his "Manifesto" book was even ghostwritten for him. He is simply a tool.