Skip to main content

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around the, real debate is over how much government spending will increase. No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead the cuts being discussed are illusory and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in prospective spending increases. This is akin to a family saving $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about the unrepentant plundering of the American people. The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith in the credit of the United States being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other. In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of cuts that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to cut. It would only take us five years to cut $1 trillion in Washington math just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic. A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply referred to that year's spending levels, which would hardly do us fear, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever. We pay 35% more for our military today than we did 10 years ago for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population or double the land area or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount. In Washington terms a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger cut than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.


-Ron Paul

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

And THIS comes from the rethugliteacon propoganda site:  RED STATE!

 

It sure is fun to watch the rattlesnakes bite each other.

 

BOTH parties are over:  The Tea Party and the Rethuglicon Party!!!

 

From Red State

The Hypocrisy of Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul has rarely been on my radar. Sure there were the  anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published  under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were  those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was  behind Watergate, that Lincoln  was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his  assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes  violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican  Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by  today’s congressional standards.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he  will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is  100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he  wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill.  Its the best  of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis  and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling   $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives.   (source: Open   Secrets): Last April Paul appeared on  Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.

CAVUTO:Congressman,  the rap is that you’re a porker,  that — that a lot of pork, $73  million-plus, went to your district. Is  that true? REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.  But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted  for  an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this  whole  thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he  is open about them. It reminds one of the Gangster Big Julie, a  character in the musical  Guys & Dolls, who best line in the play  was

“Well, I used to be bad when I was  a kid, but ever since then I’ve gone  straight, as has been proved by  my record: Thirty-three arrests and no  convictions!”

These  earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the  location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to  “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be  sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to  implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it  were done in someone district of a different congressman.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an  earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass),  but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about   every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He   doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well  organized and support him do so  with a passion. When I saw them at  CPAC, Paul supporters reminded me of those wide-eyed cult members that  used to panhandle at airports.  That wasn’t particularly bothersome,  after all people  should have some passion. Problem is Ron Paul does not  represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a  “drooling crazy”  type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC  spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good script  but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long  time ago





Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×