I was watching this video from Fox Business News (warning, RP plugs contained inside) and there is the pretty blonde broad who always says dumb stuff that sounds smart on the panel. She starts talking about earmarks. Don't people understand that whatever is not earmarked, gets put into the money the executive allocates? Earmarks can be waste, if you want to look at it like that, but cutting the earmarks will not cut spending. It will just be allocated elsewhere. I had a little epiphany today watching Ron Paul on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, as Russert grilled him about filing earmark requests (appropriations), but then voting against them. Paul's answer made me rethink how I think about earmarks and "pork". Basically, they are tax credits. Sure many of the projects are frivolous, but how else do we get any of our money back from the government? They've already shown they will spend everything they get, and more.
I'm sorry, but you seem to me to be as blind in following everything that Ron Paul says as the neocon supporters here who would defend every last step by Bush. A tax credit represents a large scale govt decision that went through some forms of debate, argument, congressional review--and should support some type of broad policy that comes from the govt to push some type of economic plan. For instance, much debate and discussion, (and lobbying of course ) to push through tax credits for something like solar energy and stuff like solar panel installation. There was widespread debate about the issue. There was a decision that expanding the solar power industry was a positive social goal. There was widespread recognition that the current costs of solar energy are too high; that investment didn't pay off compared to other investments. The decision was made to issue tax credits. Some of the thinking behind that included the recognition that without this kind of help and spur to increase demand and move money into the industry it would have a hard time ramping up, furthering research, improving manufacturing and ultimately bringing the costs down to something more comparable with other energy costs. The decision on a tax credit came from a consensus and the actions of congress. Secondly the tax credit is a direct deduction on one's taxes who makes a specific investment in solar power. It could look like this: Guerilla invests in solar panels and other equipment and spends $1,000 of documented costs. Assume the tax credit is 20%. Guerilla gets to deduct 20% of 1,000 or $200 for directly making the investment. Earmarks are entirely different. One congressman without any commentary or review from anyone else writes up a specific amount of money to fund some specific project. That is it. One person does it....and basically noone else has a say. They all do it....so they all support it. The earmark can be for anything. It is not tied to a specific action i.e. the buyer of solar panels gets a tax credit for that specific purchase. It is at the unique discretion of the member of congress and it has no direct relationship with any action taken by the group to fulfill a largely debated widespread govt policy. They are as different as night and day. Ron Paul's views on bringing back all soldiers and cutting all aid are dramatically radical. If after WWII the US hadn't basically supported Europe, the Soviet Union would have rolled through far more than it did. Similarly the Chinese would have rolled through most of SE Asia, probably gone to Japan and taken over as much of the world as they could have. Huge elements of the world would have been under brutal totalitarian govts. I admit we could seriously review our policies and cut with regard to foreign aid and military expenditures. The Eisenhower warning to beware the "military industrial establishment" was wise. We invest in outrageous amts of military that often escapes any kind of scrutiny. Cripes our govt has all kinds of rulings that are enormous wastes. Frankly withdrawing everyone everywhere is simply naive. There are plenty of bad guys throughout the world. Its an invitation to the bad guys to create dozens of incidents of death and destruction in all corners of the world. You want to cut the costs of govt? And do it with reason. Try this. Allow the heads of General Electric to come in and run the US govt budget for a couple of years. That company is an amazing conglomerate and has been one for years. They push all divisions to get within the top 3 for market share for their industry. Fail to do so in the allotted time and they sell the business. Great discipline and a long history of success in many fields. Set up guidelines for performance. If the agency doesn't work--Junk it. Bingo!!!! The guidelines would be mixtures of policy not profits or market share....but treat them the same way. But frankly Paul's response on earmarks was totally off base. They are in no way like tax credits. They have no relationship between the recipient of the congressional goodies and the payment or costs made by that group. Further, by writing up and submitting earmarks, fully aware that Congress is going to vote em all in.......and then knowingly voting against earmarks when it is crystal clear they are going to pass.......that is extraordinarily hipocritical. It seems Congressman Paul wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He gets to claim both sides of the story. He goes home to the district and like every other member of congress gets to tell his constiuents that he brought home the bacon for them. He also gets to claim he is against spending. Its utterly ridiculous. I like some of the stuff he stands for....but on this issue he is way off in left field and his defense of his actions is preposterous.
I am aware of the difference between tax credits, and appropriations. You've already covered how relatively insignificant appropriations are. My point is, one he has an obligation to submit his constituents appropriation requests, regardless of whether or not that is against his better judgment. If my understanding is correct, he views it as their right, to reclaim some of the money sent to the federal government in taxes. He's not responsible for all of the members who vote for the pork bills. The argument that submitting them, even if he is against it, knowing that it will pass is his fault, is outrageous. The onus is on the entire house to cut out pork spending. Paul votes against all pork. His and others. That they vote the other way is beyond his control, but I do not see how not submitting his constituents' earmarks is doing his job as their representative. Do you? As far as the positions you like of his, I would be interested to see you name them.
I just looked it up again, and I am fairly sure that pork does not increase spending. It's either spent in the legislative branch, or the executive branch. Can anyone confirm this?
I agree with you on this guerilla. It seems Russert was trying to play a "gotcha" on Paul but to me it just looked desperate. Is this really what they are going to try to use for a "gotcha" ??? Sometimes I think the attempt is to smear someone in this way is done because they think people will not bother looking at the issue deeper. At the surface level what Paul does may seem inconsistent. But it is not really. Hopefully people will look at that. As Paul was saying, the problem with the earmark situation is that if Paul doesn't put them in then it's basically as if his constituents don't get anything back for the tax money they are giving the government while others do. So not doing that wouldn't be fair. To me this is just another great point of Ron Paul, he's an extremely principled politician but he is also pragmatic in situations like this. He still votes against all earmarks to show that on principle he believes the entire system should be changed but while it is the way it is, it doesnt make any sense to not let his constituents get their piece of the pie (that they put in...) like he said... otherwise that money will just go somewhere else.
Well, he doesn't just vote against the earmarks as a protest. He introduces a lot of legislation to cut taxes, issue credits and reform government spending. But yeah, if you didn't represent your constituents, how in the hell could you hope to be re-elected? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And again, I'm looking at it as a credit, because unappropriated funds in the legislature are passed up to the executive branch. It does nothing to cut spending by not submitting, or even voting against pork. The money is spent regardless, except it's not spent by the people, for the people.
With regard to earmarks....he is bsing in my regard. If he is a man of principle with regard to cutting spending he wouldn't submit them. Earmarks have exploded over some recent period. I think the research I cited reported they tripled from the mid 90's to the mid 2000's. Before then....some sneaky congresspeople must have figured it out as some way to look like hero's to their constituents. I like that he is a dramatically different voice within the Republican party. I agree more in principle then in fact with him. I like the cost perspective. I think the US govt needs to roll up costs. Seriously, if they could establish a govt model with different measures then pure market share a la GE....what a great way to evaluate programs and then slash slash slash if they aren't working. I'm sure it would be hard. It would subject evaluations of programs to enormously different perspectives--liberal versus conservative. Let them keep doing it. They would have to come to reasonable compromises in so doing. The current main stays of the republican party similarly speak out of two voices. Govt costs skyrocketed under Bush. In practise he has been anything but fiscally conservative. Not even close. I like the fact that he wants to get out of Iraq. So do I, though not in the same way. He simply sounds like a straighter speaker to me than the other candidates...in fact pretty much straighter than the candidates in both parties. I do think most of his ideas are theory and not based in reality, though. Bringing home all troops overseas from everywhere would open the door to widespread human disaster everywhere. The human crisis in Darfur in Sudan is a great example of how bad guys will beat the hell out of humanity when not prevented by bigger forces. That is the problem in a microcosm. The Burma/Myanmar situation is another one. If the US hadn't stopped and turned back Saddam in Kuwait...he would have kept rolling through the mideast. That is why I think its naive. I guess between wanting to be more fiscally sound--and willing to take big steps to get there and wanting out of Iraq are generally things with which I agree.
I wasn't trying to draw you into a debate about RP, but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents about two things. Theoretical. There is little theoretical about what he proposes economically. It's a system that we had in this country that contributed to our greatest period of economic growth. If you follow what he is talking about, the Founders understood that economic freedom was the only way the Republic could thrive. They were incredibly intelligent about inflation and monetary policy. When it came to fiscal policy, they were luddites. They figured, your money was better spent in your hands (including charity) than sending that money off to a central government to provide charity at their discretion as your proxy. The second thing is humanitarian issues. I hope you realize that young American men and women die in these humanitarian incursions. That they swear an oath to defend this country, and have been used for several decades now (since WWII) to promote a global agenda, that is not necessarily in the best interests of the United States. It's so easy to say, "there is evil in the world, YOU go put your life on the line to change it, I'm staying home". It sets a dangerous precedent when the US military is used as the world's peace keeping force. I know it is not constitutional, and I'm pretty sure it does a great disservice to the men and women who serve to protect our national defense.
Why not just follow the Constitution? The numerous departments, such as Education, Energy, Commerce, DHS, TSA, (need I go on?) are absolutely unnecessary. The proper role (for good reason, so that we don't end up with a centralized state, that trends towards socialism which we see today) is national defense, border defense, diplomacy, free trade and the rule of law. That's it. The Founders knew that if the government grew, it would become an oppressive behemoth like it is today. And it is oppressive, because almost any non-statist economist (and even a few neocon economists) will tell you that lower taxes are good for growth. What we have, allowing the government to secure deficit financing from the FED, by way of the collateral of an income tax, is a system that grows at the expense of the free market. They've been pulling the inflationary tax for a long time, because the reality is, if the people had to pay the tax bill each year for a balanced budget, and our military adventures, there would be a revolt. So instead, they debase the currency, and we have a continuing spiral of mounting debt, and decreasing savings. You can only bleed the system dry for so long.
There was one other thing he said that I agree with. He has said he is for term limits. I like and agree with that. Oops I think most would agree though that 18 years in Congress is beyond the term limit concept that any reasonable person would contemplate. The frigging govt doesn't have to spend money will nilly. Bush cut taxes. That took money out of govt and returned it to people and corporations. Course he kept spending like crazy....BINGO huge huge debt. He likes spending money...and saying that he is fiscally conservative. In fact that is like Ron Paul saying he is against earmarks...and then submitting them. There is all sorts of stupid spending within the govt. At the end of every fiscal year if an agency hasn't spent all its budget it goes on a spending/buying spree to spend till the last dollar. The way the govt works if they don't spend all they were budgeted for...they lose it. Isn't that stupid. Suppose they operated efficiently and did what they were supposed to accomplish and did it under budget. Wouldn't that be great. I'd reward the one's who did so well with some of that saved money and take some of the saved money and apply it against debt...or reduce costs somewhere. Cripes that is exactly like business. The govt could do that. They just don't. I bet employees working for govt would love that. They would get a bonus for producing. Wouldn't that be cool. Getting back to Paul....clearly I'm just giving my opinion. I like the way he sounds...I like some parts of what he says and I think he is a combination of naive and way way too theoretical. Frankly, he should get called out on that earmark stuff by the Press. When you are under the radar screen like he has been while in Congress and in the early portion of the Primary as a dark horse no one calls you out. When you hit the glare of scrutiny then you better come up looking good. His response about earmarks being like tax credits is a bunch of bs. They are thoroughly different. Earmarks are candy gifts from congressmen that additionally helps them get reelected. Earmarks have absolutely nothing to do with any equation or specifics. They are candy. Tax credits are targeted and put through scrutiny of a large public eye. They directly relate to the target of that policy. anyways that is my $0.02
He took off 12 years between runs. But he never took a voluntary term limit. Not after he saw good young legislators like Mark Sanford leave prematurely after a self imposed term limit. We lost an asset in congress.
Isn't an even simpler solution, than running the government like a business (which is fascism), to simply limit income, and eliminate deficit finance?