Ron Paul's Bringing Home the Bacon

But earmarks are not "reporting theft" are they? They are stealing it back? And if someone breaks into your house and takes something that is not yours, you are not permitted to break into their house to steal it back.

Secondly, the consitution makes provision for taxes. It does not make, so far as I know, provisions for earmarks. The projects that Ron Paul is requesting earmarks for (the ones that I looked at) are not provided for in the constitution.

I wonder if your loyalty to Paul may be getting in the way of your judgment here. There are no excuses for earmarks. Every dime Ron Paul takes for his district (or any one for their own district) is money taken from paying down the debt, or going back to the pockets of taxpayers. There is no consistutional provision for these earmarks. If a local district wants to do these projects, then let them fund them.

 

In this case, yes, a congressman is allowed to "steal" it back via earmarks and his disctrict is better off for it. (Though I would say that stealing back one's own property isn't really theft.)


Btw, please respond specifically to this:

 

Where is this in the constitution?

I think that is unintelligible. I think it shows a lack of principle. If the principle is that it should not leave in the first place, then you address it there. You don't sidestep the constitution, further run up the national debt, while complaining about those who don't follow the constitution and spend too much money.

To me, if you are driven by principle, you don't take advantage of the very things that you think are wrong.

 

It's like this, Pastor Larry, if a person attacks you and you fight back, your violent response doesn't in and of itself mean you are validating the initial violent behavior despite the fact that your response would be both equivocal and similar. Morally, pragmatism is demonstrably justifiable.

 

I don't think its like that at all. Pragmatism in morality is never justifiable. In self-defense, fighting back is not pragmatism.

But I noticed you didn't address the question of where the Constitution provides for earmarks. Please tell us the constitutional provision for these earmarks that Paul has requested.

 

What a day! I am humbled and inspired, grateful and thrilled for this vast outpouring of support.

On just one day, in honor of the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the new American revolutionaries brought in $6.04 million, another one-day record. The average donation was $102; we had 58,407 individual contributors, of whom an astounding 24,915 were first-time donors. And it was an entirely voluntary, self-organized, decentralized, independent effort on the internet. Must be the "spammers" I keep hearing about! (LOL-ed)

...Said the local newspaper (http://www.thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=36475b4d132fc0a1): "The elderly sat with teens barely old enough to vote. The faces were black, Hispanic, Asian and white. There was no fear in their voices as they spoke boldly with each other about the way the country should be. Held close like a deeply held secret, Paul has brought them out of the disconnect they feel between what they know to be true and where the country has been led."

Excerp from a letter I recieved from the good doctor today.

Average donation of $102. That's a lot of folks, folks.

 

The constitution doesn't allow for earmarks precisely because it doesn't allow for a federal income tax. The last I checked we weren't debating whether or not earmarks should be in existence as I do believe I labeled their funding "unconstitutional money grabs" twice in this thread alone. By default of being "unconstitutional" such a money grab and its subsequent use OBVIOUSLY aren't in the constitution. What we ARE debating is what should be done after the "unconstutional money grab" has already occured. You support letting his constituents suffer more needlessly by not returning a portion of the theft: I support easing the suffering by returning as much as possible.

And anyone who practices any form of morality in a fallen world is by definition a pragmatist as illustated here:

 

Actually, the constitution does allow for an income tax in the 16th amendment. But earmarks are nowhere to be found. Which is my point. Paul is a "constitutionalist" and argues that he would cut out all these departments that aren't consitutional. He complains that the consitution wasn't followed in the Iraq War. He is building his whole campaign on this "return to the Constitution" and then explicitly violates his own principle. To me, I think that is hypocritical. You can't complain about the buffet while bellying up to it.

I think we return it in the form of income tax decreases. Let the people spend their money. We dont need the government to spend it for us.

Not at all. I think you might be misunderstanding pragmatism. Pragmatism is a philosophy that the ends justify the means.

We can fault Paul for the way in which he chooses to live in this world. And we should.