Congressman Ron Paul, who not only talks the talk...he walks the walk...

For at least the 4th consecutive year he has returned unused office funds. This year returning $140,000 in unused office funds to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of paying down the national debt. The sum is nearly 10% of his office funds and a 40% increase over the $100,000 he returned last year. In 2009 he returned $90,000 and in '08 he returned $58,000.

Believing in constitutionally limited government and actually LIVING by a set of standards and not comprising your morals gets you labeled as "wacky" and "extreme"...yes by Washington standards I would say Ron Paul is "wacky" and "extreme"...in the best possible way.

**************************

The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.

 

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

 

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way."---Mal Reynolds Capt. of Serenity, "Firefly-Class" spaceship

Original Post
Paul does love his earmarks, and his use of doubletalk to defend them is politicking at its best. Paul claims that he only gets earmarks for his constituents because the fedgov is taking too mush of their money, so he will try to get as much back as he can. Then, after he gets his earmarks in every spending bill, he votes against most every spending bill. The rational approach would be to try and end the reckless budget practices of the fedgov, or at least be a honorable representative and not participate in the corruption.
quote:
Sez juan: Paul does love his earmarks, and his use of doubletalk to defend them is politicking at its best. Paul claims that he only gets earmarks for his constituents because the fedgov is taking too mush of their money, so he will try to get as much back as he can. Then, after he gets his earmarks in every spending bill, he votes against most every spending bill. The rational approach would be to try and end the reckless budget practices of the fedgov, or at least be a honorable representative and not participate in the corruption.


There we go...I knew I could count on juan for a "positive".



"FOX-O-PHIL"
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Paul does love his earmarks, and his use of doubletalk to defend them is politicking at its best. Paul claims that he only gets earmarks for his constituents because the fedgov is taking too mush of their money, so he will try to get as much back as he can. Then, after he gets his earmarks in every spending bill, he votes against most every spending bill. The rational approach would be to try and end the reckless budget practices of the fedgov, or at least be a honorable representative and not participate in the corruption.



Opposing earmarks is effective as a political stance, but it is not really the problem. And earmark spending is in no way some sort of compromising of principle on Ron Paul's part.

Average Joe's, like myself are rightly concerned about "earmarks", "pork", or whatever you want to call wasteful spending...but ending earmarks as a strategy to be "fiscally conservative" would be nothing short of disaster. Ron Paul knows this, and if most congressmen and media talking heads were more concerned with educating the public than playing politics, this would be obvious.

Eliminating earmarks would simply shift control of government spending from elected officials to unaccountable bureaucrats...shift CONTROL...not the AMOUNT of spending.

The real issue is the size and scope of government. The only way to rein in government spending is by the wholesale elimination of unconstitutional departments, agencies, commissions, administrations, corporations, councils, boards, and bureaus with all of their programs and personnel...and Ron Paul has never shied away from calling for such Constitutionally limited federal government.
Paul adds earmarks to spending bills, then votes against those bills so he can proclaim how he is really a fiscal conservative. That makes him part of the problem and dishonest but pragmatic, ie a typical politician. Lets see how much his office spends in comparison to other Senators.
For instance:

quote:
Congressman Paul isn't the only House member who runs an annual office surplus. Across the aisle, Congressman Bill Owens (D-NY), who joined the ranks of Congress after winning the hotly-contested NY-23 special election in 2009, has also returned a portion of his congressional office budget this year. Last month, his office reported a surplus of over $230,000- 15% of his annual allotment and even more than Congressman Paul's surplus.


Beat by a Dem again. Repubs cant win....

http://caivn.org/article/2011/...e-budget-us-treasury
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
For instance:

quote:
Congressman Paul isn't the only House member who runs an annual office surplus. Across the aisle, Congressman Bill Owens (D-NY), who joined the ranks of Congress after winning the hotly-contested NY-23 special election in 2009, has also returned a portion of his congressional office budget this year. Last month, his office reported a surplus of over $230,000- 15% of his annual allotment and even more than Congressman Paul's surplus.


Beat by a Dem again. Repubs cant win....

http://caivn.org/article/2011/...e-budget-us-treasury


Good for Owens...that's 2 years in a row for him...see if he can keep it up.

But "Beat by a Dem again. Repubs cant win" and "That makes him part of the problem and dishonest"...is just grasping at straws.

There is no Dem or Repub that can hold a candle to Ron Paul's honesty, values or commitment to principle.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Paul adds earmarks to spending bills, then votes against those bills so he can proclaim how he is really a fiscal conservative.


WRONG!

As pointed out, Ron Paul fearlessly calls for constitutionally limited government...the REAL REASON for out of control spending. Other politicians...left and right...make a so-called "stand" on earmarks, dishonestly claiming to be "fiscal conservative", when earmarks are a tiny portion of a federal budget.

Earmarks typically make up about 1% - 2% of the federal budget. Get rid of all the earmarks you want, and it would barely make a dent. That's because earmarks come out of a total amount of federal spending that's already carved in stone before the earmarks are ever doled out to the lawmakers. In other words, the money's going to get spent anyway.

The only difference is that with earmarks, individual lawmakers get a little bit of say in how it gets spent. Take earmarks out of the equation, and the decisions get made within the executive branch, or at best, among the Congressional leadership...whose primary concern would be rewarding friends.

As Ron Paul has stated:

quote:

"Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem... is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills....


Earmarks Don't Add Up
By Dr. Ron Paul

quote:

Earmarks seem to be the hot topic this week, and as a fiscal conservative I am dismayed so many people deliberately distort the earmarking process and grandstand to make political points. It is an easy thing to do with earmarks. It takes a little more time and patience to grasp the reality of what earmarks really are.

To be sure, if earmarks were the driving force behind explosive government spending as some have been led to believe, that would be a good reason for all the fuss. The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.

The real issue is that the overall budget is too big, by far, which is why I always vote against it. But attacking the 1 percent that was earmarked solves nothing. The whole issue is a distraction from the real problems we face, which are that the Federal Government will absorb over 1/3 of our country’s GDP this year and taxpayers are forced to fork over more than half their income to fund government at all levels. On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen. The recent increases in bailouts, government spending and money creation is going to hobble our economy for decades. We must curb the government’s appetite severely if this country is ever to thrive again. The noise over “earmarks” is a red herring and a distraction from the real issue of uncommitted spending.

It is time to attack the entirety of government spending. We especially need a full account of the activities of the Federal Reserve that spends and creates trillions of dollars with no meaningful oversight. This is a huge problem that needs immediate attention.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×