Prior to appearing on Fox with Neil Cavuto today Ron Paul gave a speech on the House floor where he tied the earmark debate to his Federal Reserve transparency bill, HR 1207.
This was a masterful political move for Ron Paul. He knows he is now getting attention and criticism for being an “earmarker”. He utilizes that attention to push his bill, a bill that most lawmakers should get behind.
I’m not being critical of Paul here. In fact I think it is a great idea to tie earmarks to 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 position of having to explain and defend himself to the public. The public is largely ignorant of the ‘workings’ of earmarks which immediately leaves Paul at a disadvantage.
So he gets up on the House floor and rather than tip-toe around the subject he comes right out and admonishes his fellow lawmakers saying “We need more earmarks!” In doing so he makes a great point that is difficult for anyone to refute. At least with earmarks we know where the money is going. The same cannot be said for the rest (99%) of our tax money. Watch him work his Ron Paul magic below.
Judge Napolitano continues his liberty power hour, Freedom Watch, tomorrow afternoon at 2pm EST. This week he welcomes one of the main stream media’s best free market libertarians John Stossel. No doubt they will discuss Stossel’s upcoming special on 20/20 Friday night called “Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull”, among other topics.
The Judge also brings back Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Peter Schiff, and Tracy Byrnes (from Fox Business Channel). Also joining the crew will be Campaign For Liberty President John Tate.
The show has been a big hit on the Internet and YouTube. The ultimate goal is to try to get the show on the Fox News TV channel so please show the Fox Execs how much you support the show by doing the following:
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.
Well, Obama gave an answer anyway. His response was a bit long-winded and another attempt at political misdirection that he is becoming quite famous for these days. The Washington Times reports:
“It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question,” he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday.
Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was “just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter,” he said it wasn’t he who started the federal government’s intervention into the nation’s financial system.
“I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan — without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word ‘socialist’ around can’t say the same.”
Wow. He contradicts himself in a paragraph. Obama has learned “free market” principles from George W. Bush because he’s doing the same thing. Yet he blames Bush for not following “free market” principles. Here he comes off like a child arguing that two wrongs make a right, or should I say two Leftist policies make a right?
It continues:
The New York Times asked, “So whose watch are we talking about here?” but Obama wouldn’t name names.
“Well, I just think it’s clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis.”
He concluded the brief call by saying, “I think that covers it.”
In essence Obama has no free market principles if he believes “we’ve had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene.” The second you start throwing around the words “intervene” and “free market” on the same side of an argument you have already lost.
The real answer is that Obama may not be a Socialist in the purest sense, but he is certainly driving on the left side of the road. Truthfully his belief in wealth redistribution is Socialist in nature and his belief in regulatory control over the financial markets is Fascist in nature. In the end this name calling from the Right and blaming from the Left (Obama) do not matter.
What matters is getting out of this mess. Simultaneously blaming the Bush policies while expanding the reach and cost of those policies is not the way out. But apparently, Obama thinks it is. Aren’t we lucky he’s our President now? So much for change.
The first major event during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign was a disagreement on foreign policy between he and Rudy Giuliani. At that time, foreign policy was the major issue of the campaign. I’ve always maintained that the only issue anyone would care about come election day would be the economy. Everything we do is based on the economy. It is always the number one issue. Of course, no one really cares much about it when the perception is that it is doing well.
Now that it is not doing well at all, foreign policy is almost an afterthought. Ron Paul has always tied the two “issues” together. Austrian economics teaches us to look at the entire picture and the long term implications of human action. Ron Paul rightly links our wasteful overseas spending to the economic problems we are facing at home. Yesterday he released another of his weekly columns on his Congressional web site. In it he focuses on America’s foreign policy of intervention and calls upon us to truly think about how we would react if another country’s soldiers were patrolling the streets of our country.
This, in my view, is his strongest argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy. It is the oldest argument in the book, the golden rule argument: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And, as always, in the end he ties it back in to our precarious economic condition. With Obama continuing the Bush foreign policy we are merely prolonging the inevitable and worsening the pain.
“Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”
Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.”
With nineteen new bills introduced on Monday, this marks the least “productive” day since this column has begun, six business days ago (which is a good thing, comparatively speaking). Overall, the newly-introduced bills are just more of the same:
SR70 – A resolution congratulating the people of the Republic of Lithuania on the 1000th anniversary of Lithuania and celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.
HJR39 – Recognizing the 188th anniversary of the independence of Greece and celebrating Greek and American democracy.
HR227 – Recognizing and appreciating the historical significance and the heroic human endeavor and sacrifice of the people of Crete during World War II and commending the PanCretan Association of America.
S-554 – A bill to improve the safety of motorcoaches, and for other purposes.
S-553 – A bill to revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota to include existing hiking trails along Lake Superior’s north shore and in Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest, and for other purposes.
S-552 – A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to encourage owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch, and forest land to voluntarily make their land available for access by the public for maple-tapping activities under programs administered by States and tribal governments.
S-544 – Provides for special immigratory treatment of Ashley Ross Fuller, despite the rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the contrary.
S-550 – Provides for special immigratory treatment of Francisca Lino, despite the rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the contrary.
S-549 – Provides for special immigratory treatment of Simeon Simeonov, Stela Simeonova, Stoyan Simeonov, and Vania Simeonova, despite the rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the contrary.
S-548 – A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal energy efficiency resource standard for retail electricity and natural gas distributors, and for other purposes.
S-547 – A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for enrollees of Medicaid managed care organizations by extending the discounts offered under fee-for-service Medicaid to such organizations.
HR226 – Recognizing the plight of the Tibetan people on the 50th anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama being forced into exile and calling for a sustained multilateral effort to bring about a durable and peaceful solution to the Tibet issue.
HR224 – Supporting the designation of Pi Day, and for other purposes.
HR223 – Honoring the life, achievements, and contributions of Paul Harvey, affectionately known for his signature line, “This is Paul Harvey. . .Good Day”.
S-545 – A bill to develop capacity and infrastructure for mentoring programs.
Most of these bills are clearly out of bounds of official business of the federal government and/or are clearly unconstitutional.
Have you ever considered calling your representatives to tell them how you feel about any of the bills introduced into Congress?
I must admit that the first time I did so, I was afraid. But you must remember that the office of each senator or representative is staffed with people answering the phones. They expect you, their constituent, to call in to let them know how you feel. They are waiting for your call. Really! Nearly every time I call, someone answers right away, and I’m treated with courtesy and respect. When they answer, simply tell them what bill you support or oppose, and they will pass along your message to your representative. Some may as for your name and address, and some may not. It’s really as simply as that. Expect your phone call to last no more than a couple of minute.
If you don’t know who your Senators are, or how to contact them, click here to found out.
Be a part of the process. Let your elected representatives know how you feel. Your comments may or may not make a difference, but if you do nothing you are guaranteed not to have a say.
Quote of the Day: “Everything not specifically prohibited is mandatory.” — the fundamental principle of government
The Congressional war against small business continues. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) will create a new food safety bureaucracy, and require a “traceability” program for “food production facilities and food establishments.”
These new regulations will drive many small farms and restaurants out of business. Big Business can afford the compliance costs and will benefit from the reduced competition as smaller firms go bankrupt. Consumers will face fewer choices and higher prices, but will we really get safer food in return, and will it really be worth the cost?
Congress would have to know a lot of things that probably can’t be known in order to evaluate this question, but they’re charging ahead anyway, re-engineering society on the backs of small business owners.
Part of the bill’s intent is to absorb already-existing food-tracking programs. Section 210 (d)(4) says the new food-tracking system must be “consistent with existing statutes and regulations that require record-keeping or labeling for identifying the origin or history of food or food animals,” including “the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) as authorized by the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (AHPA).”
The contention that NAIS was authorized by the AHPA is wrong. NAIS implementation has never been authorized by any Congressional legislation. It’s a bureaucratic initiative.
This false assumption gives NAIS the aura of Congressional approval. Instead . . .
As has been discussed previously (most notably during the most recent presidential elections), the heated debate over the issue of “earmarks” (or what John McCain likes to call “Pork-Barrel Spending”) is really nothing more than a distraction from the really important issues (such as our monetary system, the Federal Reserve, and the national debt). As Dave Gonigam eloquently describes at LewRockwell.com:
Earmarks typically make up about 1% of the federal budget. In the spending bill being debated right now, it’s a little under 2%. [....]
But really, we’re talking about a pittance in the big scheme of the federal budget. Slaughter all the earmarks, and it would barely put a dent in runaway spending.
Well actually, it wouldn’t even do that.
That’s because earmarks come out of a total amount of federal spending that’s 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 and punishing enemies among the back-benchers.
As Ron Paul has stated, at least by accepting earmarks he can get his constituents some of their money back. It’s a way of making the best of a terrible situation.
If we want to get real change, we need to change the big things first. If your bedroom is a mess, you don’t start cleaning up by dusting the baseboards behind the bureau. You pick up things off the floor and make the bed. Only after the big items have been accomplished should you spend any real time on the minor details.
Why do politicians often tend to get sidetracked with the relatively inconsequential details? Is it because they are ignorant of the bigger issues? Or is it simply because they’re scared and overwhelmed by the bigger issues so it’s easier to make the smaller ones appear bigger than they really are.
By clever misdirection they are able to sweep the important tasks under the carpet and fool the majority of the electorate into thinking that important topics are being discussed. But to those of us paying attention, these politicians are acting like children hiding their peas in their mashed potatoes, hoping mommy and daddy won’t notice.
Enough bailouts? One bailout is one bailout too many. As many have pointed out it is a fallacy to blame capitalism or the free market for our economic woes because we haven’t had a free market system for about 100 years. Just because the modern day conventional wisdom (or lack thereof) is that deregulation caused our problems does not make it true.
Too many of us are Obama-blind. We smile and drool at our new king as he reaches his hand into our pockets and steals whatever he wants for whatever purpose he wants. Obama is using the economic crisis as an opportunity to mold America into a clone of Venezuela. I certainly hope in 20 years we aren’t going to be hailing Hugo Chavez as our new Founding Father.
If you’d like to do something to oppose the bailouts and path toward nationalization then Right.Org is a great place to start.
They have a great web site where you can sign a petition in opposition to the bailouts, participate in a video competition to win your own bailout, keep up on the latest bailout related news, and grab a bailout calculator flash widget to place on your own site like the one below.
Head on over there and make everyone else understand that capitalism is not dead yet, and the free market is not the cause of our economic troubles, but the solution. Go to Right.Org now.
Ron Paul sat down for an interview with DL Hughley on his CNN show. The interview was quite good. Paul ran through a lot of his talking points plus a bit more.
Hughley seemed awstruck that a Republican is publicly saying the things Ron Paul is saying and has said for many many years, saying that he is “too human to be a Republican.”
Hughley then brings up slavery during the Civil War period, and finishes by asking Paul if he’ll run in 2012. Ron finishes with a funny answer to sidestep the question a bit.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
