Replies

>>>So using federal funds for garbage like “drop out reduction” and a rehab center is free market economics?<<<

Please post links for “drop out reduction” because I could not find it. I did find a link to the Ellis County (Texas) GOP Resolutions where they opposed federal mandates for “drop-out reduction” and other stuff. They also wrote this:

“BE IT RESOLVED, The Republican Party of Ellis County and Precinct 123 should adopt a declaration thanking and praising the efforts and service of U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Arizona, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Surfside, TX, for their service and promotion of the Constitution, the rule of law and our Founding Fathers...”

These are Ron Paul’s views on federal education:
(http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/)

“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.

Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.

Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.

The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”

I found some of Ron Paul’s earmarks for drub rehab centers (one for minority veterans). These are Ron Paul’s views on earmarks:
(http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/)

Be sure to read these paragraphs:

“Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.

Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue– the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.

Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars.”

Note that Ron Paul accused you of distracting from the real issue: federal spending.

>>>Calling public spending a “tax rebate” is right out of the Ayn Rand playbook, eh ?<<<

I see you are relying on Neil Cavuto’s interview for your “understanding”. I am disappointed you give so much weight to that Katie Couric wannabe. Did you notice how the arrogant, condenscending jackass would not let Ron Paul completely answer his questions (ala, Katie).

If Cavuto had allowed Paul to finish, you would find that all money is appropriated before some is earmarked. That is, not a single penny of an earmark is added to the budget since the money is already appropriated. Money that is not earmarked is given to the executive branch to spend however they wish. Therefore, eliminate all earmarks and you will not reduce the federal budget a single penny. You will only increase spending by the executive branch.

Read this carefully: Earmarks are not the problem. Federal spending is the problem. Paul’s solution: reduce the federal budget.

Ron Paul stated he supports all tax rebates (anything to give more money back to the people), including public spending in his district via earmarks. After all, it is their money. Why not give it back to them. If not in a direct rebate, at least give it to them in improved roads, facilities, etc.. If they don’t get it, Obama’s cronies will get it, and you know how they will spend it.