# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash explains differences with Ron Paul in town hall

## tsai3904

From a town hall Amash held on February 19.




> Q: On what, if any issues, do you differ from Congressman Ron Paul, who is justly famous for his strict, principled stand in defense of the Constitution?
> 
> Amash: I certainly admire him as an independent thinker, as someone who stood his ground. We have differences on taxes. He considers targeted tax breaks to be tax cuts, I consider them to be subsidies. These are tax breaks that are just for a specific organization. We have disagreements on some aspects of foreign policy, and that'd be too long a topic to get on with here. I disagreed with him on earmarks. He supported earmarks, and I don't agree with him. I don't think Congress should be sending money to pet projects in their districts.


http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...3-278-385.html

----------


## ctiger2

> I disagreed with him on earmarks. He supported earmarks, and I don't agree with him. I don't think Congress should be sending money to pet projects in their districts.


I think Ron's right on earmarks. The congress has the purse, the congress decides where all the money will be spent. Every last dime should be earmarked so we know exactly how much money is going where. Spending money on pet projects in districts is what their tax dollars should be spent on since they're paying for it. The last thing you want is a single guy (president) who decides where all the money gets spent.

----------


## EBounding

It'd be great if the worst thing we had to worry about in Congress was earmarks and tax breaks/subsidies.  

Thanks for the post, the blogger posted all the questions:
http://connect.mlive.com/staff/zmcmillin/index.html

I liked this exchange:




> Q: Second Amendment was brought up. What are your thoughts  I think we need some moderate discussion on this issue. I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned a country where 30K people are dying every year from guns, where first graders are being shot. There needs to be some moderate discussion that says there need to be some changes in our laws that encourage some more responsible distribution, perhaps.  There needs to be a middle ground. 
> 
> Amash: Someone would have to share with me the middle ground for me to comment on it. 
> 
> Q: Universal background checks. 
> 
> Amash: Why should they be federal? 
> 
> Q: You could have something at state level in Michigan and then go buy something in Indiana if they didn't have same thing. Needs to be consistent. 
> ...

----------


## phill4paul

I'm a liking me some Amash!

----------


## V3n

I'm liking him on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie

Can't believe I forgot to do that before now.. Go get on board!

----------


## No Free Beer

Amash 2020!

Amash is ready to Smash!

----------


## S.Shorland

Massie is a different person from Amash



> I'm liking him on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie
> 
> Can't believe I forgot to do that before now.. Go get on board!

----------


## TonySutton

There are 40x more deaths per year related to tobacco use than there are homicides by guns.  If people really cared about saving lives they would outlaw tobacco.  Since they are not outlawing tobacco the whole "save lives" gun argument is a lie.  They want to disarm the country plain and simple.

----------


## V3n

> Massie is a different person from Amash


LOL!  Too many tabs, not enough coffee!

----------


## sailingaway

> I think Ron's right on earmarks. The congress has the purse, the congress decides where all the money will be spent. Every last dime should be earmarked so we know exactly how much money is going where. Spending money on pet projects in districts is what their tax dollars should be spent on since they're paying for it. The last thing you want is a single guy (president) who decides where all the money gets spent.


Ron absolutely is right on earmarks, if you follow the Constitution. That is too bad.  Amash is very good on civil liberties, and I hoped it was coming from the point of view of a Constitutionalist. But real Constitutionalists don't just follow bits of it.

I agree earmarks aren't near the top of my list, but I do like real Constitutionalists best because I know where they stand, holistically.

----------


## supermario21

Yeah Congress has the purse, but the argument that Amash (and Rand) make is essentially that the optics of earmarks are horrible.

----------


## tsai3904

> Ron absolutely is right on earmarks, if you follow the Constitution.


The act of earmarking is constitutional but it sounds like Amash may have problems with spending on pet projects that may not be constitutional.  I'm sure Ron didn't agree that all the projects he was submitting were authorized under the Constitution.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah Congress has the purse, but the argument that Amash (and Rand) make is essentially that the optics of earmarks are horrible.


Yeah, but on so many points following the constitution when the momentary 'optics are horrible' is precisely what we need.  If you don't follow it when it is unpopular, it is no shield against tyranny by the majority, at all.

My two cents.

Having said that, I don't hinge my support for anyone on their view of earmarks, alone.

----------


## sailingaway

> The act of earmarking is constitutional but it sounds like Amash may have problems with spending on pet projects that may not be constitutional.



Ron always votes against the spending. It is only at the amendment stage when they are saying whether the president gets a blank check for the specified amount for whichever unconstitutional spending category, or if Congress will say where some of it goes for specific projects that Ron puts them in.  It would go to the unconstitutional category of spending regardless, but Ron's way keeps some of the spending transparent and by congress rather than behind closed doors by the executive. The problem with earmarks is selling votes, and since Ron never voted for the spending when the full bill came up, whether 'his' earmarks were in it or not, he never did that.

To clarify, I recognize the Constitution never anticipated the spending on unConstitutional stuff, so earmarks in those areas put you in a tough spot either way you go.  But Ron's way is the strictest following of the constitution, and if they would all vote against the appropriation altogether, not the earmarking of a tiny part of it, we'd be better served.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think Ron's right on earmarks. The congress has the purse, the congress decides where all the money will be spent. Every last dime should be earmarked so we know exactly how much money is going where. Spending money on pet projects in districts is what their tax dollars should be spent on since they're paying for it. The last thing you want is a single guy (president) who decides where all the money gets spent.


Yes, Congress has the purse, but they shouldn't be spending money on pork projects, either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The act of earmarking is constitutional but it sounds like Amash may have problems with spending on pet projects that may not be constitutional.  I'm sure Ron didn't agree that all the projects he was submitting were authorized under the Constitution.


Exactly.

----------


## tsai3904

> To clarify, I recognize the Constitution never anticipated the spending on unConstitutional stuff, so earmarks in those areas put you in a tough spot either way you go.  But Ron's way is the strictest following of the constitution, and if they would all vote against the appropriation altogether, not the earmarking of a tiny part of it, we'd be better served.


You shouldn't assume that Amash thinks earmarks are unconstitutional.  He may just disagree with the process of earmarking and submitting projects that the federal government shouldn't be spending money on.

----------


## sailingaway

> You shouldn't assume that Amash thinks earmarks are unconstitutional.  He may just disagree with the process of earmarking and submitting projects that the federal government shouldn't be spending money on.


I wasn't assuming anything about that.  I was saying what he does is LESS constitutional because it sends more unconstitutionally spent funds (breach of Constitution #1) to be allotted out by the executive (breach of Constitution #2).

The real problem about earmarks is neatly acknowledged by Horowitz who admits it is about executive power.  Who should get to say where the money goes, the president or the Congress? Whether you allow earmarks or not, in almost all cases the money is spent anyhow, but by the executive choosing HIS cronies instead, behind closed doors.   

'Earmarks' were turned into a bad word by people who wanted a line item veto for the president, increasing dramatically the power of the unitary executive. The line item veto was actually passed at one point and the supreme court said such delegation of congressional power of the purse was unconstitutional because it went to the heart of Constitutional separation of powers. (Query whether our current court would have the backbone.)

Now they are trying to create something similar, where the president has to be at least a proponant of the earmark. All that bit about appropriation committees having to do it still earmarks, still lets cronies be determined, gives establishment much more power, and in varying degrees most of the 'reform proposals' I've seen require the executive to also approve, via departments and add these to their budgets.  Basically it is, from the view of the executive, "I get to spend my blank checks how I want and I get to have major pressure on how congress allocates anything it wants to spend, as well.", which turns the purse more to the executive than to congress.

People aren't analyzing it from the point of view of a unitary executive when they get all hot under the collar that Congress, not the executive, approved a study on pig stink in Pelosi's district.

----------


## tsai3904

> I wasn't assuming anything about that.  I was saying what he does is LESS constitutional because it sends more unconstitutionally spent funds (breach of Constitution #1) to be allotted out by the executive (breach of Constitution #2).


Got it but that does assume the executive branch will allot the funds.  What if we do finally get a President concerned about spending?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

I'm more concerned with his differences on foreign policy and would've preferred to hear him discuss that issue than earmarking.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I wasn't assuming anything about that.  I was saying what he does is LESS constitutional because it sends more unconstitutionally spent funds (breach of Constitution #1) to be allotted out by the executive (breach of Constitution #2).


The whole damn thing is unconstitutional when you get down to it.  The money should never have been extracted and it damn sure shouldn't be used for pet pork projects.

----------


## sailingaway

> Got it but that does assume the executive branch will allot the funds.  What if we do finally get a President concerned about spending?



I'm not sure I read what you said the way you meant it.

Are you saying, let's give the president the powers of a dictator, because, who knows, he may be someone we like some day?

Isn't that exactly why Dems are suddenly copacetic about drones and NDAA, because a 'good guy' holds the cards in their opinion?  And why conservatives were ok with executive orders under Bush?

And when was the last time we had a president you would want to have that much power?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Ron absolutely is right on earmarks, if you follow the Constitution. That is too bad.  Amash is very good on civil liberties, and I hoped it was coming from the point of view of a Constitutionalist. But real Constitutionalists don't just follow bits of it.
> 
> I agree earmarks aren't near the top of my list, but I do like real Constitutionalists best because I know where they stand, holistically.


The Constitution gives Congress the authority to spend the money on their delegated powers, not on whatever project they want to. I understand Ron's position, but I doubt he really feels that way. I think that was his way of playing the game to keep his seat, just like Rand plays the game by warmongering for Israel and what have you.

----------


## sailingaway

> The whole damn thing is unconstitutional when you get down to it.  The money should never have been extracted and it damn sure shouldn't be used for pet pork projects.


Yes it is, that is why I said it puts people in a tough spot, it is bad either way. But one way involves two separate breaches of the constitution and is being sensationalized to pressure Congress to give even more power to the executive, so I think Ron's way is better thought out.

But I think those we like who oppose earmarks are just seeing the anger over stupid projects, which shouldn't be funded by EITHER the executive or congress, and don't want to be tied to them.  My personal concern is that they aren't thinking it through.

That doesn't make me see them as enemies, but I do disagree with them.

----------


## The Gold Standard

I also agree with Amash that targeted tax breaks are subsidies.

----------


## sailingaway

> The Constitution gives Congress the authority to spend the money on their delegated powers, not on whatever project they want to. I understand Ron's position, but I doubt he really feels that way. I think that was his way of playing the game to keep his seat, just like Rand plays the game by warmongering for Israel and what have you.


As I said, earmarks involve one breach of the Constitution if the money spent is unconstitutional. However, sending the same money for unconstitutional purpose to be allocated by the executive also breaches the Constitution in that way, and ALSO involves giving the executive the unchallenged and untransparent AND unconstitutional power of the purse over where the money goes. These are HUGE blank checks we are talking about, and a ton of them.

What needs to be done is that the actual ALLOCATION needs to be voted against, that is the overall agreement to fund the bill at all, and Ron always voted against that, even if it gave money to terminal children patients or whatever other 'save the children' argument was in there.  Because it was unconstitutional, and Ron took his oath seriously. You could count on it, accordingly.

----------


## sailingaway

> I also agree with Amash that targeted tax breaks are subsidies.


Then you have to view the money as the government's and view tax cuts as a 'cost' to government.

I see that it is bad in crony capitalism sense, but I also see value in both sides of that argument.  I don't object to Amash's view on its own, if he has a consistent voting policy where that makes sense.  Ron was consistent in his view and I support that, but it doesn't mean no one could have a different way of treating it which might also be supportable.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm more concerned with his differences on foreign policy and would've preferred to hear him discuss that issue than earmarking.


Yeah.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Then you have to view the money as the government's and view tax cuts as a 'cost' to government.


Not so. I'm in the Amash camp on this one. Targeted tax breaks are effectively the government having other taxpayers subsidize the taxes of of the favored organization(s). The effect is precisely the same as a subsidy in all respects other than the paperwork.

I'm also with Amash on earmarks. The classic way to do a fair division between two parties is to have one party do the division and the other party chooses which part to take - the point is to incent the divider to make as fair a division as possible. The same principle applies to appropriations - one branch appropriates for a program and the other decides the details of executing the program. This removes the incentive of the appropriators to appropriate unnecessarily in narrow self-interest - they will have to approve an appropriation without knowing if the money will end up in their own district or someone else's. We need some check on people making grabs from the public Treasury in order to benefit themselves, and killing off earmarks is a good one. If Congress doesn't like how the money is spent, they can stop appropriating it - so the executive has every incentive to spread the wealth judiciously or risk having the funds cut by a Congress that doesn't like where the money ends up.

Earmarking may not be barred by the Constitution but I don't see it required there either.

----------


## tsai3904

> I'm not sure I read what you said the way you meant it.
> 
> Are you saying, let's give the president the powers of a dictator, because, who knows, he may be someone we like some day?


No that's not what I meant.  I was trying to say that the fear that the executive branch will spend the money should not be used to justify submitting bad earmarks.  If the President is spending money unconstitutionally, then that's a problem that needs to be dealt with on its own.  I don't see the solution of preventing that as Congress earmarking every dollar to projects that are not allowed under the Constitution.

----------


## compromise

> I'm more concerned with his differences on foreign policy and would've preferred to hear him discuss that issue than earmarking.


Here are some of them:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/16/re...moving-forward



> Still, there's about 10 percent of things the two congressmen don't see eye to eye on, Amash says, though Paul sees them as nuances. One example is the strategy in killing Osama bin Laden. Paul would have preferred another channel such as the trial and hanging of Iraq's Saddam Hussein than a covert invasion of Pakistan, whereas Amash is comfortable with the tactic used to kill the al-Qaida leader.


http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...29045273775201



> Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to our country's security, and I support economic sanctions against Iran.


http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...16173911794979



> Here's the roll call for the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 2105, Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011. The bill authorizes sanctions against foreign-based companies that have traded with the sanctioned countries in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology. Also, the U.S. government is prohibited from cooperating on nuclear technology with countries that have helped the sanctioned countries with that technology. I voted yes. It passed 418-2.





> I do not believe that sanctions, as a general matter, are unconstitutional or unwarranted in particular circumstances.


http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...97409766965102



> I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 4133, United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. The bill reaffirms the U.S.-Israel security relationship, supports the continued development of a joint missile defense system and the production of the Iron Dome defense system, pledges to assist Israel to "forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security," and temporarily extends an existing line of credit to Israel's government, which may not be used for activities outside of the 1967 borders. (This is constitutional in connection with Congress's power to raise and support Armies.)
> 
> My father is Palestinian and my mother is Syrian. Israel is far from perfect. Some of its policies and actions violate deeply held American principles of liberty and justice. But Israel is our closest friend in a very troubled region. Our national defense benefits from Israel's ability to defend itself and to serve as a check against neighboring authoritarian regimes and extremists. Assisting with training and the development of Israel's military capacity allows the U.S. to take a less interventionist role in the region. I am hopeful that American troops soon can leave the region and Israel and its neighbors can live in peace without U.S. aid or involvement. It passed 411-2-9


To be honest, the differences are very minor.

----------


## supermario21

Subsidies are corporate welfare. It's pretty much what Rick Perry uses in Texas. Give everyone the tax break across the board.

----------


## sailingaway

> Not so. I'm in the Amash camp on this one. Targeted tax breaks are effectively the government having other taxpayers subsidize the taxes of of the favored organization(s). The effect is precisely the same as a subsidy in all respects other than the paperwork.



Except where the money comes from.Which is pretty huge.  It isn't 'subsidizing others' it is giving the govt less to spend, or is your lower tax rate than someone else 'subsidizing you'? You in principle are saying the govt owns all money and 'allows' people and corporations to keep some, by subsidizing them.

And the Constitution DOES require constitutional earmarks. It is called the power of the purse.  It is the blank checks to executive that are contrary to the Constitutional balance of power. The fact that it is spent on unconstitutional stuff is also unconstitutional, but Ron ALWAYS VOTED AGAINST the spending.

what you are saying is 'maybe it would be better to do it differently than the constitution says' since something else is being done unconstitutionally, but if you ignore the constitution whenever you think a circumstance might be better handled differently, it offers no protection when you need it as a shield.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I used to hold the same thought as Amash on tax breaks. Then I read Hazlitt and Bastiat, delved further into Mises and Rothbard, and realized the error of my previous idea.

http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/hazlitt-on-loopholes/

http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/wha...tax-loopholes/

https://mises.org/daily/6310/Long-Live-the-Loophole

An excellent two paragraph quip from Rothbard:




> Many writers denounce tax exemptions and levy their fire at the tax-exempt, particularly those instrumental in obtaining the exemptions for themselves. These writers include those advocates of the free market who treat a tax exemption as a special privilege and attack it as equivalent to a subsidy and therefore inconsistent with the free market. Yet an exemption from taxation or any other burden is not equivalent to a subsidy. There is a key difference. In the latter case a man is receiving a special grant of privilege wrested from his fellow men; in the former he is escaping a burden imposed on other men. Whereas the one is done at the expense of his fellow men, the other is not. For in the former case, the grantee is participating in the acquisition of loot; in the latter, he escapes payment of tribute to the looters. To blame him for escaping is equivalent to blaming the slave for fleeing his master....
> 
>     It is clear that if a certain burden is unjust, blame should be levied, not on the man who escapes the burden, but on the man or men who impose it in the first place. If a tax is in fact unjust, and some are exempt from it, the hue and cry should not be to extend the tax to everyone, but on the contrary to extend the exemption to everyone.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here are some of them:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/16/re...moving-forward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...29045273775201
> 
> ...


Ron was fine with covert action to get bin Laden, just not in a country we called our friend without any congressional authorization of force, when the Afghanistan AUMF was being stretched to cover world wide aggression.  He had tried to get letters of marque to do it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Subsidies are corporate welfare. It's pretty much what Rick Perry uses in Texas. Give everyone the tax break across the board.


I agree that targetted tax breaks are cronyism, and it is better to do it across the board.  Ron thinks so too. But he wants all tax breaks.  Totally apart from not wanting more tax on those parties, (he wants it on none), faced with a situation where one parties tax is higher or lower, (not talking credits where you get money BACK here), he would rather starve the government so it has less resources with which to strip liberty from people.

That is a judgment call though, and I see his point, and he is so consistent, I back it completely. However, as I said that part is not a constitution based argument, so other ways of addressing it are also fine, as long as they are good ideas, imho.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Here are some of them:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/16/re...moving-forward
> 
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...29045273775201
> 
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/repjustinama...16173911794979
> ...


Thanks for the quotes but after reading through them, I can't say that I share the same excitement for Amash as others do around here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes it is, that is why I said it puts people in a tough spot, it is bad either way. But one way involves two separate breaches of the constitution and is being sensationalized to pressure Congress to give even more power to the executive, so I think Ron's way is better thought out.
> 
> But I think those we like who oppose earmarks are just seeing the anger over stupid projects, which shouldn't be funded by EITHER the executive or congress, and don't want to be tied to them.  My personal concern is that they aren't thinking it through.That doesn't make me see them as enemies, but I do disagree with them.


There is another option.

Don't pass on those constituent requests that are pork barrel to the cmte and then continue to vote against the spending bill.

----------


## sailingaway

> There is another option.
> 
> Don't pass on those constituent requests that are pork barrel to the cmte and then continue to vote against the spending bill.


Absolutely, and further entrench the power of the party establishment over rank and file Congressmen.

But if that results in less earmarks, to the precise extent it results in less earmarks, it is giving the money to the executive as a blank check and increasing the executive power of the purse.  

VERY rarely is an earmark not carved from the amount already to be spent as a blank check on a category of spending, by the executive. The Nebraska corn husker earmark to pass Obamacare was an exception, it was added on top, and then completely disavowed by the guy who sponsored it.  Most take money the executive would get to spend on the unconstitutional category of spending, behind doors, and spend it transparently by congress.  It shouldn't be spent at all, but unless this results in less SPENDING, not less 'earmarks' the congress should be allocating it. PARTICULARLY when the committees have to work with the budgets created by the adminstrative executive branch to begin with the executive is already putting in the draft of where money is spent. The reform plans, including the 'no earmark' pledge in one congress, increased the executive power, and spending went up, anyhow.  I think the dollar amount of earmarks is trivial next to the danger of even further extending executive power.

Unconstitutional and stupid spending shouldn't be done by anyone.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Absolutely, and further entrench the power of the party establishment over rank and file Congressmen.


What the hell?  How does funding wasteful pork barrel projects keep the "power" away from the party establishment?  




> But if that results in less earmarks, to the precise extent it results in less earmarks, it is giving the money to the executive as a blank check and increasing the executive power of the purse.  
> 
> VERY rarely is an earmark not carved from the amount already to be spent as a blank check on a category of spending, by the executive. The Nebraska corn husker earmark to pass Obamacare was an exception, it was added on top, and then completely disavowed by the guy who sponsored it.  Most take money the executive would get to spend on the unconstitutional category of spending, behind doors, and spend it transparently by congress.  It shouldn't be spent at all, but unless this results in less SPENDING, not less 'earmarks' the congress should be allocating it. PARTICULARLY when the committees have to work with the budgets created by the adminstrative executive branch to begin with the executive is already putting in the draft of where money is spent. The reform plans, including the 'no earmark' pledge in one congress, increased the executive power, and spending went up, anyhow.  I think the dollar amount of earmarks is trivial next to the danger of even further extending executive power.
> 
> *Unconstitutional and stupid spending shouldn't be done by anyone.*


Yet, at the beginning of your comment, you stated that not passing on pork barrel projects (unconstitutional and stupid spending) to the cmte would somehow empower the establishment.  

So, which is it?

----------


## green73

Correct me if I'm wrong, but RP doesn't like the earmarking system. He would rather have had everybody in his district get a tax break. But since that is not the case, he utilized the only option available to get taxes paid back into his district. Will Amash not be earmarking anything for his district?

----------


## anaconda

> There are 40x more deaths per year related to tobacco use than there are homicides by guns.  If people really cared about saving lives they would outlaw tobacco.  Since they are not outlawing tobacco the whole "save lives" gun argument is a lie.  They want to disarm the country plain and simple.


In all fairness, tobacco is a suicide device rather than a potential murder weapon (at least, this is probably how a "progressive" would argue the point). But I get your drift and certainly agree with you. Plus politicians like the taxes from cigarettes.

----------


## tsai3904

> Will Amash not be earmarking anything for his district?


Earmarks have been banned by the House since 2010.  They do still get around it by passing bills like the gold coins but its not like before where you insert spending projects into bills.

----------


## green73

> Earmarks have been banned by the House since 2010.  They do still get around it by passing bills like the gold coins but its not like before where you insert spending projects into bills.



Ah, no wonder Amash can now take such a stand!

----------


## green73

Ron Paul on Subsidies vs Tax breaks



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VipTgOASg28

----------


## compromise

> Ron was fine with covert action to get bin Laden, just not in a country we called our friend without any congressional authorization of force, when the Afghanistan AUMF was being stretched to cover world wide aggression.  He had tried to get letters of marque to do it.


Also, Ron wanted Bin Laden alive.

Overall, I don't think these small differences in policy are a problem. The tax breaks/pork stances that Amash, Massie and Rand have are largely in order to get support and high ratings from groups that hold those views, like FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth. Rand and Amash only differ from Ron on foreign policy by supporting a few sanctions and a few alliances instead of nothing at all, like Ron wants.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I used to hold the same thought as Amash on tax breaks. Then I read Hazlitt and Bastiat, delved further into Mises and Rothbard, and realized the error of my previous idea.
> 
> http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/hazlitt-on-loopholes/
> 
> http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/wha...tax-loopholes/
> 
> https://mises.org/daily/6310/Long-Live-the-Loophole
> 
> An excellent two paragraph quip from Rothbard: [...]


My favorite "loophole quip" is from Ludwig von Mises:



> Some of us at sherry before a Fiscal Policy dinner in the Harvard Faculty Club were beefing about certain tax loopholes in the IRS code. Gotttfried [Haberler] whispered quietly, *Capitalism breathes through those loopholes.* The next day I told him how much I had liked his aphorism. Always the straight-arrow scholar, he said, Yes, but the words are those of Ludwig von Mises not Gottfried Haberler.


H/T Joseph Salerno: http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/wha...tax-loopholes/

----------


## K466

> I'm more concerned with his differences on foreign policy and would've preferred to hear him discuss that issue than earmarking.


Ditto. The other two issues I agree with Ron instead of Justin. Glad they are relatively minor issues, he's young so maybe he will learn

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I used to hold the same thought as Amash on tax breaks. Then I read Hazlitt and Bastiat, delved further into Mises and Rothbard, and realized the error of my previous idea.
> 
> http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/hazlitt-on-loopholes/
> 
> http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/wha...tax-loopholes/
> 
> https://mises.org/daily/6310/Long-Live-the-Loophole
> 
> An excellent two paragraph quip from Rothbard:


Morally they are very different, but the effect is exactly the same distortion of the market.

----------


## sailingaway

> What the hell?  How does funding wasteful pork barrel projects keep the "power" away from the party establishment?  
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, at the beginning of your comment, you stated that not passing on pork barrel projects (unconstitutional and stupid spending) to the cmte would somehow empower the establishment.  
> 
> So, which is it?


Unconstitutional and stupid spending shouldn't be done by anyone and making the establishment (which appoints and fires congressmen from the committees) to have sole input with the executive branch writing the budget on which of that stupid and unconstitutional spending occurs, as happens with the current 'earmark ban' makes it no better. there are still earmarks, but rank and file congressmen can be shut out of them, you have to have influence with the establishment to get your earmarks approved.   COMPETITION for the earmarks at least brings it into the open and makes rank and file congressmen less beholden, if only a little, to the establishment. Plus, the executive should have no say in congressional appropriations beyond the power to 'suggest'.  The spending still occurs, and the Executive just gets more by blank check for those unconstitutional spending areas.

----------

