Liberty MavenRon Paul Defends Earmarks on Cavuto
March 10th, 2009 4:22 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Big Government, Constitution, government spending, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul | 15 Responses
Ron Paul appeared on FOX Today with Neil Cavuto where the Cavuto raked Paul over the coals due to him putting in millions of dollars worth of earmarks in the budget bill. Of course, Paul does so because he feels obligated to represent his constituents wishes and the money has already been collected. It does not increase the budget. In the end, the bottom line is that Ron Paul votes against the bill because he feels it is not the proper role for the Federal government.
These are all interesting arguments, but there are still many Paul supporters who do not agree with this practice. Some think his explanation for putting in the earmarks is fine. Those people are angry with Cavuto for subjecting Paul to this scrutiny. All I see is Cavuto doing his job and not playing favorites (he’s been very favorable toward Paul in the past).
I must admit that Paul’s position on earmarks is something I can’t quite get behind. I accept his reasoning and the fact that he votes against them, but it is hard for me to accept that he requests them in the first place, while claiming he is for limited government and following the Constitution.
There are few areas where I disagree with Dr. Paul. This is one of them.
Watch the exchange below then read the best argument for Ron Paul’s earmark behavior by Dave Gonigam at LewRockwell.com.
Loading ...
March 10th, 2009 at 5:21 pm (#)
Here’s my thing. I’m not sure if it does but his district should not receive earmark money that exceeds the amount of federal taxes his district has paid in. I think Paul would have more of an argument if he did something similar to the following.
Let’s say he gets 50 different request from his district totaling $100 million. And his district paid only $80 million in federal taxes b/w January 1st and March 5th (or whatever date the spending bill is voted on) Since he does not discriminate on which earmarks to request and which to trash he should only ask for the percentage of each of the 50 requests which equal the $80 million paid. So, in this example, each of the 50 earmarks would have their respected amount requested cut by 20%.
This way each request still receives something without Paul appearing hypocritical and without his district receiving more than what they’ve already paid for. Plus, this method would be more in tune with his philosophy since people living outside his district would not be funding projects in his district.
This method can be tweaked a bit if needed. Let’s say Paul believes the people of his district are federally taxed too heavily. And he believes a federal government that only functions within it’s constitutional limits would only need to take in 10% of what they’re currently paying. Take that 10% and cut it from the earmark total along with the 20% mentioned in my above example.
To summarize: Paul’s district paid $80 million. And he believes only $10 million of the $80 million was the proper legal amount for which the federal government needed to function in this alotted time frame. His district’s 50 requests total $100 million. Cutting 30% off of each request leaves the federal government with $10 million of the $80 million paid in and gives gives his district $70 million in earmarks.
I apologize if my math is off but hopefully everyone gets the idea.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm (#)
if everybody in congress followed Ron Paul’s example
federal spending and deficits would shrivel.
GO RON PAUL !!!
charles ranalli
albuquerque
March 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm (#)
If Ron Paul didn’t earmark then that would be like someone voting against a public education bill and then paying their child’s tuition to public school out of principle. How silly! If the money is going to be spent his district has the right to get some of it back!
March 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pm (#)
Wah Wah Wah, Gallagher!! Why don’t you get off your ass and do half as much as Ron Paul has done for the cause of liberty and small Constitutional government.
Then you might have some credibility.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm (#)
Marc does alot. Where have you been?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 pm (#)
JL makes the point that only a fraction of the money taken in taxes retruns via earmarks. It returns, as in the case of education, through programs and policies, from the funds appropriated to education and other interests.
Ron Paul’s argument that the earmarks are an attempt to get the money taken by taxes bcak falls apart when one examines the federal subsidies that were voted for by many, but not by Paul. In a word, kent’s argument falls because Paul’s earmarks do not address education and he voted against federal subsisdies for education, which subsidies are not earmarks. The district is getting more tax money back from other appropriations and spending than merely the earmarks.
What is so very interesting and amusing is that Paul is trying to avoid looking like a hypocrite–inserting earmarks for his special interests in his district, voting against the spending bill, but telling those interests that in spite of his No vote, the interests will get their funds anyway as the bill will pass.
The fact that it’s only an earmark, which accounts for some two percent of spending, or that he is trying to return tax money are clever evasions of the fact that he is adding to the spending by Congress. Of course, if he didn’t insert those earmarks, the support by those special interests involved, which probably made him a Congressman, would vanish and with that, his re-election. So he’s being prudential–being yet another politician, hardly the knight in shining armor–but then even Jefferson went and did thing that were necessary and proper for the nation, but he didn’t play games like Dr Paul has been doing.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pm (#)
actually burnett, earmarks do not increase spending. and those people deserve to get their money back. just i would take government money if i lost my job because i have been paying for that function of government all my working years even though i oppose that function
March 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm (#)
I don’t pay one penny more in taxes than I owe and I see it as my responsibility to exercise every possible loophole and gimmick that I can to minimize the amount of taxes I pay. BTW, I will pay $750,000 in federal taxes this year and there is no way in hell I will get an earmark coming my way for that amount but I want my congressman to try to get that money back for me and at least spend it in my neighborhood (not Detroit).
March 10th, 2009 at 8:22 pm (#)
This is a very wise move that RP is making. He represents his ideals of fiscal conservatism by voting against the appropriations bills which fulfills his primary duty to principle and the constitution. But since he knows that the bill will pass anyway he appropriates money to his district and responsibly fulfills his duty to represent his constituents. This is exactly what he is supposed to be doing. There are no conflicts here. The media is clawing at nothing. All they have is a man dedicated to his service.
RP 1 – Media 0. Next round please.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:58 pm (#)
[...] Fed transparency, even if it wasn’t intentional. I was a bit critical of Paul on earmarks in my article with the Cavuto interview earlier today. Paul submitting earmarks and not voting for them puts him in a precarious political [...]
March 11th, 2009 at 4:33 am (#)
Well, I'd venture to say that there are not many of us who have done half as much as Ron Paul for the cause of liberty, myself included.
That does not mean I'm not allowed an opinion on earmarks.
Enjoy,
Marc
March 11th, 2009 at 6:23 am (#)
My point was that this pathetic nitpicking by the armchair pundits and internet ego maniacs does nothing to help us fight this uphill battle for liberty and small Constitutional government. Your opinion isn't worth jack. What we need is to promote more Ron Paul's rather than whine and fuss over every little action he makes.
Right now all I see in this country fighting for liberty and America's legacy are a handful of people with Ron Paul at the tip of the spear. And you Marc are not one of those people.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:04 am (#)
My opinion is worth as much (at least) as your own.
I've been promoting Ron Paul and Ron Paul Republicans through this site since April of 2007. I worked within a local Congressional campaign to get a RP Republican elected. Unfortunately he didn't win. I walked my precinct door to door for both RP and the local Congressional campaign. I've been promoting the philosophy of liberty to anyone who would listen (and many who wouldn't) since the mid 90's, once I learned enough to do so.
I still maintain this site religiously, sometimes at the expense of my family and friends, and sleep (like now) to help spread the liberty message…. so I've done some things and continue to do some things. My YouTube channel has 227 videos (currently) that I've captured/edited, 99% of which promote Ron Paul or other Liberty candidates. I do what I can with the time I have.
Even someone who hasn't done these things is perfectly free to have an opinion regarding earmarks even if that opinion is not shared by Ron Paul. Having such an opinion does not preclude that person from participating in spreading the freedom message. In fact, disagreement and discussion are essential in a free society.
I'm rarely critical of Ron Paul, but I will be critical where I feel it is warranted. In this case, him submitting earmarks leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I must say that he makes a very good argument for his actions in doing so. Who knows, after I ponder it some more that bad taste may go away completely.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on what kind of person you think I am. It helped me realize that, after pondering it a bit and weighing the facts, you just might be wrong.
However, I do agree with you that we need to focus on the big things rather than dwell on the details. That being said, this site is sometimes about the big things, and sometimes about those details. That isn't going to change.
(I'll ignore for now the fact that you are spending time posting comments here arguing about small details when you could be utilizing that time to "promote more Ron Pauls" yourself.)
Enjoy,
Marc
March 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm (#)
CRISE
March 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pm (#)
Ha! Brilliant response. I especially liked the part: “It helped me realize that, after pondering it a bit and weighing the facts, you just might be wrong.”