[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Ron Paul on Earmarks On Tuesday, Ron Paul spoke on the House floor about the true nature of earmarks and how all spending should be “earmarked”, i.e. we should know how our money is being spent. He also promoted his bill H.R. 1207 which calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Channel: C-SPAN Date: 3/10/2009 Transcript: Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I would like to address the subject of earmarks today. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here among the members about exactly what it means to vote against an earmark. It’s very popular today to condemn earmarks and even hold up legislation because of this. The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch. So, in many ways what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities. Because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent. You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about because we’re just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress. And if we want to get things under control it won’t be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn’t address the subject. In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum”. We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better. The definition of an earmark is very, very confusing. If you would vote to support the embassy in Baghdad which came up to nearly a billion dollars, that’s not called an earmark. But if you have an earmark for a highway or a building here in the United States, that is called an earmark. But if you vote for a weapons system, it would support and help a district and that’s not considered an earmark. When people are yelling and screaming about getting rid of earmarks, they’re not talking about getting rid of weapons systems or building buildings and bridges and highways in foreign countries. They only talk about [earmarks] when it is designated that certain money will be spent a certain way in this country. And, ultimately, where we really need some supervision and some earmarks are the trillions of dollars spent by the Federal Reserve. They get to create their money out of thin air and spend it. They have no responsibility to tell us anything. Under the law they are excluded from telling us where and what they do. So we neglect telling the Treasury how to spend TARP money and then we complain about how they do it. But just think literally: the Treasury is miniscule compared to what the Federal Reserve does. The Treasury gets hundreds of billions, which is huge, of course, and then we neglect to talk about the Federal Reserve where they are creating money out of thin air and supporting all their friends and taking care of certain banks and certain corporations. And this, to me, has to be addressed. I’ve introduced a bill, and it’s called H.R. 1207, and this bill would remove the restriction on us to find out what the Federal Reserve is doing. Today, the Federal Reserve under the law is not required to tell us anything. So, all my bill does is remove this restriction and say, “Look, the Federal Reserve, you have a lot of power, you have too much power, you’re spending a lot of, you’re taking care of people that we have no idea what you’re doing, we in the Congress have a responsibility to know exactly what you are doing”. This bill, H.R. 1207 will allow us, for once-and-for-all, to have some supervision of the Federal Reserve. They’re exempt from telling us anything and they have stiffed us already. There have been lawsuits filed over the Freedom of Information Act. Believe me, there’re not going to work because the law protects the Federal Reserve. The Constitution doesn’t protect the Federal Reserve, the Constitution protects the people and allows them to know exactly what is going on. We should enforce the Constitution. We should not enforce these laws that protect a secret bank that gets to create this money out of thin air. So the sooner we in the Congress wake up to our responsibilities, understand what earmarks are all about, and understand why we need a lot more earmarks, then we will come to our senses. We might then have a more sensible monetary and banking system instead of the system that has brought us to this calamity. So the sooner we realize that, I think it will be better for the taxpayer. Madame Speaker: Thank you, the gentleman’s time has expired.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#1. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
Right. Now I understand perfectly well. Paul is saying business as usual????
If I had to make a choice between who to trust on the issue, John Boehner or Ron Paul, then I am going with Ron Paul. Look at his voting record compared to Boehner. This issue is a smokescreen.
Well, being olde and crotchety, when politicians start "backing and filling" my BS meter goes off. That term in politics means the politicians are trying to cover their tracks they left behind. Tracks they now want to disown. Also did Paul the devout republican, make this speech to a full house or at night as usual, when the chamber is empty?
That term in politics means the politicians are trying to cover their tracks they left behind. Tracks they now want to disown. I do not see that Ron Paul is doing this. He gave this speech in 2009, way before Boehner raised the issue. He has always been for earmarks and his justifications make sense to me. Also did Paul the devout republican, make this speech to a full house or at night as usual, when the chamber is empty? I imagine that he gave his speech in the time slot the leadership gave him to give it in. You sound like domer and the rest of the lovers of big government on LP. They blame Paul because Republicans refuse to sponsor or vote for his common sense, small government legislation and you blame Paul because the House leadership, which controls who will speak and when, relegates him to after hours. It seems to me that the issue here is who to trust - Boehner or Paul. If you trust Boehner that it your choice. I choose to believe Ron Paul due to his voting record and the legislation he has written and tried to get passed.
Neither. If you read the posts I call him Boner because I have a broad dislike for professional politicians, including Ron Paul. Paul is my age, he should go away, let the voters bring in a younger person that perhaps has fire in their belly. Ron Paul is a nice guy, a gentleman, with a wonderful message, but he is not the person to carry it out.
Ron Paul is a nice guy, a gentleman, with a wonderful message, but he is not the person to carry it out. In a perfect world what you say here makes good sense. However, we don't livw in PERFECT WORLD AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A YOUNGER NICE GUY WITH FIRE IN HIS BELLY, ON THE HORIZON. Paul seems to be the only one who gets it, who understands the mistakes and the influence of the special interests and avoids compromising his character and principles far more than any other politican. He is not perfect and he makes mistakes like all humans. He has been making "wake up Americans" wakeup calls for a long time. Before him William Proxmire did the same. But we dumbed down Americans ignored closing the barn door until the horses already got out. Now we put the messenger in the gunsights and lay the blame on him. We have earned what is happening to us(US)now and we have done it the old fashion way by either steering clear of the problemsand or ignoring them until they come to overwhelm us. Then we find some cheapshots at someone like Ron Paul. Like him or not, right now he is the only politican at least willing to bring up the "REAL" problems bringing this nation down. If there is a younger politican out there with fire in his belly, he better show up real quick because we are running out of time.
There are no replies to Comment # 34. End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||