Club for Growth Endorses Bill Richardson

What was his position out of all of the Representatives? The 29% was how he voted on the Bills, not what portion of the House he belongs to with regards to spending. Again, you do not understand the appropriations process. The money is already allocated before earmarks are introduced. The money is already SPENT even if no earmarks are put in. And it doesn't go towards the debt, because it is SPENDING, not SURPLUS.

Semantic argument. Re-read the portion you posted. Paul is accused of being a purist. Ok, let me revise my statement. They claim his being a purist as a negative. Happy?

You accuse him of being a pragmatist, and then you support an article that calls him a purist. Which is it? Is he a pragmatist or a purist? I'll run with your definition.

Do you understand the role of the President and the separation of powers? He can affect massive change, he simply does not have unitary power. That is how our Republic is meant to function.

 

The average Republican scored 43% -- and I want to lynch them for that.

There is no excuse for a score below 90%.

Irrelevant. If not allocated, it will not be spent. You're committing what is known as "pocket accounting"

Happier. "purist" and "principled" are two very different words.

Hitler was the former, but not the latter.

I don't think I've ever accused Paul of being a pragmatist.

Source?

This statement negates your earlier argument.

 

You're not answering my question.

This is not correct. I have directed you to the House Guidelines for the appropriation process. The money is already marked for spending, before appropriation bills come through.

"Earmarks" and "Pork Spending" are a canard, meant to distract people from focusing on the growth of big government. In this regard, the CfG is eminently successful. Because it is a 527, we'll really never know who is behind it.

A logical process for reducing spending is to (1) reduce income, and then when they print the money (2) people will realize that the government is devaluing the currency to generate it's growth.

Instead, a sum total of projects around the $50 billion mark get looked at as the only form of government waste, when in essence, and while not all projects are equal, many of the earmarks return the money to communities, and fund desirable projects. Paul puts in numerous earmarks for Texas Highways, and NASA.

Semantic argument. Paul is both principled and a purist.

You say that he buys votes, and then you reference a document that he is a purist in his ideology. So I am somewhat confused. Is he a pragmatist or a purist? Either way, you've got a paradox.

Not at all. It reinforces it.

 

I think this thread woulda died if I hadn't made a snarky comment.

I read the club's bulleted mission statement and then read the reviews of the Republicans running for office.

I can see how you characterised the comments on Richardson as a "virtual" endorsement of a democrat.

I basically disagree with what I would call an extreme effort to cut "all taxes"

To me that is the no solution result. At some time the govt doesn't have the money to solve problems that are particularly govt oriented.

I'm curious, does the Club or some other entity have a total $ "porkiness" factor wherein the pork earmarks are totaled and one can see which members are the porkiest? That would be interesting.

Some time ago in a thread on discussing the costs of the war in Iraq, all the deep neo-cons and ultra conservatives dropped out Will. Nobody wanted to discuss the costs and how to pay for it rather than turning the costs into debt.

It turned out the research was a bit hazy on the actual total value of pork(earmarks) based on, I guess definitions of what was and weren't earmarks.

Of some interest in a different thread I noted that about 5 members of congress including democrats and republicans instituted earmarks toward specifically providing more armor and more protection for soldiers in Iraq faster than the Pentagon was doing.

I thought those were actions well taken.

On the no tax situation there might be an interesting election next year in the Senate from Virginia.

It appears now that the Republican favorite (from the party bosses side) to run is Jim Gilmore who was governor of Virginia in the past. He would be running for Senate against Mark Warner, who followed Gilmore in the Governor's seat. Party bosses supported a convention insider method of choosing the party nominee versus a more open forum for the public.

In any case Gilmore presided over a period with tight money and he installed tight tight expenditures. He absolutely kept the state from spending on road improvements that many see as necessary. Virginia in the two most heavily populated parts of the state has terrible road congestion.

Should Gilmore be the nominee, which seems quite likely right now, it will be interesting to see how the campaign proceeds in that Gilmore is ardently anti-tax.

My guess is that he'll be take a whupping.

 

I'm happy you did, because the anti-earmark zealots have a very narrow view of government waste and spending.

I see myself as an ultra conservative, but I agree about the neo-conservatives dropping out. That said, the liberals weren't exactly too forthcoming with solutions either. People seem to keep grasping at the idea that there is an acceptably large size of government, just as they discuss the symptoms of an economic problem, without getting deeper into the systemic process that enables both. Until the system is addressed, it's all band-aids.

I believe Duncan Hunter was one of these. Now that Tancredo has dropped out, Hunter is my next favorite GOP candidate after Paul, because he is principled, effective and while we are diametrically opposed on the war issue, I feel like he is someone we could give the keys of the car to, and he would try to do right by the American people and the military.

 

Okay. The estimate for the war in Iraq was about $150 billion/year.

1. Since I'm for getting out sooner than later....start here.

Take a look at policy and see what areas coincide with combinations of maintaining a presence in the middle east, protecting the free flow of oil, being a preventive force against Iranian dangers, remove forces....and work to follow on the Biden plan of allowing the nation to break into 3 ethnic areas and shoot for a combo of all three as follows along these lines:

In the course of reducing our presence there shoot from $150 billion to $100 billion to $50 billion to some lower amt of money.

2. Take the earmarks and cut em all in half. That should take it from about $20-30 billion to $10-15/year.

3. Redo the Pentagon budget and strike at remnants of the policies and expenditures that represent cold war funding and projects. No idea how much would be saved but it has to be significant.

4. Go thru govt contract arrangements with businesses and see which can be switched into lower cost functions. I know there is savings there. Having worked for about 1 year for a consulting firm I saw some ridiculous farming out that could have been a govt function and dramatically saved money. Not sure how much can be saved but it might be significant.

5. Alternatively go thru govt agency spending and re-evaluate what could be farmed out and done less expensively by private sources.

6. Restructure taxes to move the tax burden back the way Bush restructured it favoring the wealthy and uber wealthy.

7. Restructure corporate taxes looking at who doesn't need corporate tax breaks or where the tax versus income levels are terribly skewed by tax breaks.

8. I'd put a govt tax on usage of oil products. That would have a variety of results including; a) govt income to offset costs of Iraq and other worthless investments. b) cut the usage of oil which simply drives huge amts of american dollars to middle east, russian, and other anti american nations, while not doing anything to move off our dependance on this politically dangerous fuel--it would also have the effect of further reducing the negative trade balance the US carries which only helps to drop the value of the dollar. c) income could be used to focus on alternative fuel research and development which would spur productivity, spur the development of an industry; and create new jobs in new ways.

Somebody closer to budgetary economics would have to total that up.

Finally I'd get the govt to tax the cr@p out of Will. It probably wouldn't make that much money but it would force him to work harder.

Again I'd look at govt like a big business like GE and rework the thing to focus on productivity.

 

Earl, thanks for responding.

Iraq war spending is higher. But you've got good ideas. I'd like to know how you feel about Paul's position on bringing the troops home from Japan, Korea and Europe?

$30 billion is lower than I thought. Thank you for reminding us that earmarks are a drop in the bucket of fiscal waste.

The military industrial complex won't like that. There is so much military pork, it's not even funny. I'm sure it dwarfs domestic earmarks by a factor of 5 or 10.

This isn't a bad idea. It's not ideal in my mind, but it would be a progressive step. However, everything has to be bid out publicly. There cannot be any secrecy or no-bid contracts because that would lay the groundwork for fascism. Oh wait, we're already doing that.

Same as above. Ideally, I would like to see the free market provide services, without the government dictating what those services are.

I would be for removing all corporate tax breaks. I'd like to encourage entrepreneurship and small business ownership. The system is currently set up to punish business, which sends our jobs and industries overseas. We need a competitive advantage, and it has to start with less regulation and taxation. Unleash the creative energy of the people.

As much as this would be enjoyable, over taxation (in my view, all taxation) retards growth. It's a disincentive. Not to mention that I am wholly opposed to the welfare state. People need opportunities, not handouts.

I think we really need to look at clearly define what the role of government is, at all levels, and what the role of the individual is in the decision making process. I don't like deferring my decision making to someone higher up. I want autonomy and freedom within the law.