The last time I checked, public spending is not a “tax rebate.” The individual doesn’t benefit, only the “collective” allegedly does.
In the interview with Cavuto, Paul sounded like a Marxist.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes Ron Paul says great things. (At one point, I was one of his supporters. Why else would I read a book by Thomas Woods ?) But he also says a lot of stupid things. It’s the stupid things, which greatly outnumber the good things.
Ron Paul has also voted for a tax hike.
“In addition to never voting for an unbalanced budget, Ron Paul often touts his record of never having voted for a tax increase. Some people are arguing that this streak ended yesterday when Paul, joined by Paul-influenced Republicans Jimmy Duncan and Walter Jones, voted for the House Democrats’ extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in
“In the space of 24 hours, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has voted for tax hikes, against censure for Charlie Rangel, and defended Julian Assange.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254459/ron-pauls-idiem-mirabilisi-daniel-foster
I don't think he was being literal. It is a way for taxation to get back to the local district from where it came. His point was that it is better for spending to go back to the local districts than to stay in Washington.
I don't think the extension would count as voting for a tax increase. He's on the record supporting a repeal of the 16th Amendment. Semantics over what is and what's not a tax cut on the Bush extensions are just that.
He's one of the good guys on taxation, and to suggest otherwise is just stupid.
How is voting “for an extension of tax cuts” voting “for a tax increase”? It sounds like the opposite.