Why did RP ask for all this federal funding

[gravesdav]

Found this on CNN. They asked all the representatives for their earmark requests. Paul is one of the few who released them, but why? It seems against what his says about the federal government
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

 

[rich34]

This may not be correct, but the way I understand it is Ron Paul has a job to do. And that is to support and stand up for his consitutents. Even though he disagrees with the federal government giving away tax dollars the way they do he still has a job to do and that's to get things done for his constituency. With that said. Once the bill gets to the house floor and is voted upon he still votes no.

So it's kinda like he plays by the rules of government today the way the rest of them do because he has a job to do for his people, but when it comes to the actual vote on the house floor he votes against all of it because he thinks it's not the federal governments job. I know this sounds confusing, but it's very unique and I can completely understand where he's coming from.

 

[MGS]

This may not be correct, but the way I understand it is Ron Paul has a job to do. And that is to support and stand up for his consitutents. Even though he disagrees with the federal government giving away tax dollars the way they do he still has a job to do and that's to get things done for his constituency. With that said. Once the bill gets to the house floor and is voted upon he still votes no.

So it's kinda like he plays by the rules of government today the way the rest of them do because he has a job to do for his people, but when it comes to the actual vote on the house floor he votes against all of it because he thinks it's not the federal governments job. I know this sounds confusing, but it's very unique and I can completely understand where he's coming from.

Makes sense to me.

 

[gravesdav]

Makes sense as long as he votes no.

 

[angrydragon]

"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's (his) job to make sure money comes back in the district," Lizardo said.

However, Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8Q0K7EO1.html

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yup, he introduces them, but he votes no.

Here's another source.

Feb. 26, 2007 issue - Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill.

He believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers, and nowhere in the Constitution's enumeration (Article I, Section 8) can he find any reference to rice. So there. "Farm organizations fight me tooth and nail," he says, "but the farmers are with me." Of course they can afford to indulge their congressman's philosophical eccentricity because lots of other House members represent rice farmers, so rice gets its share of gravy. Still, Paul is a likable eccentric, partly because he likes his constituents while disliking what he considers their incontinent appetite for government. Why, "If you ignore what they say about rice, they are nice people." He would help them by ending the trade embargo with Cuba, to which they used to sell a lot of rice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/

 

[Harald]

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred-billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer-term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

 

[angrydragon]

Funny, if we didn't have all these taxes like the income tax, I don't think anyone would care too much because we'll be spending the money ourselves, how we see fit, instead of them.

 

[Wyurm]

Funny, if we didn't have all these taxes like the income tax, I don't think anyone would care too much because we'll be spending the money ourselves, how we see fit, instead of them.

It would be even better if we had stable government controlled (instead of Fedral Reserve controlled) money that was income tax free.

 

[foofighter20x]

It would be even better if we had stable government controlled (instead of Fedral Reserve controlled) money that was income tax free.

No. We need a 100% gold dollar that Congress shouldn't be allowed to touch.

Watch this video:

Money as Debt​

Listen to this audio book:

What Has Government Done to Our Money?​

We should also do away with our current banking laws and jail bankers for fraud if they print claim checks for gold-money that doesn't exist. That form of fraud is called "counterfeiting." I'm sure you've heard of it.

 

[Wyurm]

I've watched this one already: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

 

[foofighter20x]

The Money Masters is good for the history behind it all, but the legal fixes they recommend are poo.