Ron Paul has come under criticism for daring to wish that, if his constituents' money is to be taken from them by the federal government, that some of that money actually be spent on his constituents. By placing earmarks in Congressional bills, there is not a dollar extra added on to the bill. The only difference is that the money is allocated by Congress and not by the executive branch - the more earmarks, the more transparency. In contrast to what you hear on TV, earmarks are not responsible for the out of control spending. They only make up 1% to 2% of the total bill, and as I said, that 1% to 2% of the bill would be spent regardless! It is hard to see why Paul is getting criticized for this since he 1) votes against all these bill anyways and 2) is the most fiscally conservative member of Congress by a long shot.
Paul's position on earmarks are analogous to a libertarian (me) using government roads or government research grants even though he/she strictly oppose them in principle. If my money is being taken from me against my will (as are all taxes), then I feel no shame at all in attempting to "get my money back" by walking on government roads, playing in government parks, or taking advantage of government grants. If I ever have a chance to vote against these monopolist activities and keep my money, then I will do so, but it would be silly for me to refuse to use the roads and government services that are being paid for by my labor. Basically, I strictly oppose my money being taken away from me by governments but if it is going to be taken away from me then I will try and take it back through whatever means is available. You can watch Ron Paul explain his position from the floor of the House below.
0 comments:
Post a Comment