Freedomain Radio

Ron Paul and the High Cost of Liberty: $400 Million in Pork Spending for District

By Ryan P. Christiano

Congressman Ron Paul often declares himself a critic of federal spending, and touts himself as a Libertarian. It appears however, that Congressman Paul doesn't always practice what he preaches. For the Congressman, liberty appears to have a very high price tag.

The Wall Street Journal, The Congressional Quarterly, The Liberty Papers, The Cable News Network, and The Fox News Channel have all researched the Representative's "fiscal frugalness". Unfortunately for Representative Paul, he is neither frugal nor libertarian in his earmarking.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Congressman Paul is planning to request an astronomical $400 million dollars worth of earmarks this Congressional year. The libertarian Congressman has requested $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. That just scraps the surface of the proposed spending.

According to David Nather of The Congressional Quarterly, Paul is decrying irresponsible and unconstitutional Federal spending, while he requests earmarks for his district that:

" includes two projects to improve the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, at a combined federal cost of roughly $32 million. There’s also the sunken ship Paul wants the feds to remove from Freeport Harbor. And he wants the feds to take charge of maintaining the Pix Bayou Navigation Channel. There’s also a feasibility study for flood, hurricane and storm damage control projects along the coast. And there’s the mysterious “project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay.” (The bill provided no other details.)"

Congressman Paul doesn't see a conflict between libertarian ideals and rampant earmark requests for spending. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”

The Congressman goes on to justify his spending propensity as an offsetting action against executive power:

" a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny."

The Congressman claims that in an ideal world there wouldn't be a federal income tax, however, as long as there is one, he has a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. Whether or not his constituents want that reclaimed money going to the marketing of wild American shrimp and shrimp fishing research is not clear.

Representative Paul has a unique approach when throwing his support behind certain earmarks. He sponsered ten earmarks for a particular bill and then sat out the vote when the bill came to the floor of the House. This is clever of the Congressman, even if it is less than libertarian of him. This technique ensures that he will bring home the bacon to his constituents, when he feels the bill will pass anyway with his earmarks, while pacifing his anti-tax supporters who helped him get elected to Congress.

The Congressman declares himself a constitutionalist while asserting massive spending powers never granted to him in the very document he claims to be the greatest guardian of.

*Note - Ryan Christiano is a young libertarian Republican activist from New Jersey. He is a member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus which supports a strong stance against Islamo-Fascism.

Stefan Molyneux:

The Congressman claims that in an ideal world there wouldn't be a federal income tax, however, as long as there is one, he has a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. 

Hm... sounds like something I read in Stef's latest article on STR. 

Ron Paul is not anti-state. He's anti-administration, and anti-policy. Big deal.

Greg Gauthier:

Ron Paul is not anti-state. He's anti-administration, and anti-policy. Big deal.

 An anarchist politician would be a walking contradiction in terms. :)

Still, a Ron Paul presidency might prop the state up for another 10 years - if they didn't kill him first.

NonAbsolute:

Still, a Ron Paul presidency might prop the state up for another 10 years

I'm not sure if that's a great thing. 

D.B.:

NonAbsolute:

Still, a Ron Paul presidency might prop the state up for another 10 years

I'm not sure if that's a great thing. 

Well, it depends on what you think is going to happen after fascism takes over. The historical position is that it ain't going to be freedom.

I was mostly being facetious, though.

I don't want to get into this too much because I both understand your point about Ron Paul and I still think he has a possibility of doing some sort of good, but...

He looks at this the same way you look at taking government subsidies or a tax return.  His constituents send in requests for government money and he sends them all through as earmarks.  He's said in one of his things posted on LRC that if the government is going the spend the money, he should do as much as possible to give as much as he can back to his tax-paying constituents.  The thing with these stories about earmarks is they never say that they are attached AFTER the decision to spend the money has ALREADY been made.  It's really much ado about nothing, as far as I, and most Ron Paul supporters, are concerned.

Also, one of the most important things I learned in a University history course is to always check the author and what reason he'd have for writing something.  And the author of this article is a member of the Republican party, who is pretty anti-Paul for the most part because he's not a war-mongering corporatist.  I've yet to see any libertarian authors writing and complaining about this earmark issue.  And sorry, I can't consider a libertarian that's anti-Islamo-fascism a real libertarian.

Hi. Everyone. My name is Ryan Christiano. The author of the article featured in this post.

Since some of the articles I have written are now getting some wanted (and unwanted :) attention on several noted political websites and journals, I would like to clarify my core philosophy and belief system, so that other writers do not have the opportunity to define my philosophy to advance their own personal philosophical agendas.

I am unaffiliated with any political party. I am not registered with any political party, and have not been so since late 2004. I was a registered Republican during the 2004 Presidential Election when I supported the re election bid of President George W. Bush. I registered only as a Republican at that time so that I could cast a ballot in the Republican party primary. Once I learned that you could vote in either party's primary as an Independent in the state of New Jersey, I quickly re-declared myself an Independent.

I have privately supported candidates from the Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties.

I would position myself as a libertarian-leaning Independent. Meaning specifically, Socially moderate (classical liberal, if you must) and fiscally conservative. In a nutshell, my core political philosophy, for this time, at the youngish age of twenty -three, is best reflected in the words written by renowned writer, H.L. Mencken, when he said his ideal was:

"A government that barely escapes being no government at all."

I seek a limited constitutional government that I believe the Framing Generation intended for this nation. I like a federal government that provides police, military, traffic lights, and a missile defense system. Not much else. This is a humorous way of writing that I trust the individual more than I trust the federal government.

I do support the war on terrorism, and separately, believe the Iraq war was a noble endeavor, to bring liberty and freedom to a people shackled under the shadow of tyranny. History may (and probably will) judge me wrong. Even if the action falls short of the intention, the nobility of the act itself is not diminished.

Thank you to all of those who have taken the time to read my work, comment on it, and share it with others. I love writing and truly believe in the immortality of the written word.

With The Kindest of Regards,

Ryan P. Christiano.

Welcome, Ryan. Your article is quite good! Thanks for dropping by.

From the way you've described yourself in this post, I think you're what we philosophers would describe as a classic "minarchist" - an individualist who subscribes to a minimalist state. A lot of folks from that realm of political philosophy have frequented this board, at times, so you're not totally alone.

I think you'll find the core philosophy here, though, both incrementally and dramatically different from minarchism. In essence, the consequent political belief that is derived from the philosophy talked about at Freedomain Radio, is "Anarcho-Capitalism", but this place isn't strictly devoted to promoting "Anarcho-Capitalism" as-such. Rather, the approach here, is to re-evaluate one's entire personal life, actions, and thoughts, according to a firmly rational and empirical standard, and to fully accept and act upon the consequences of that appraisal. Anarcho-Capitalism just happens to be one of those consequences.

So, if you'll indulge me, I was wondering if I could ask you some questions about your post: 

patriot:

I am unaffiliated with any political party. I am not registered with any political party, and have not been so since late 2004. I was a registered Republican during the 2004 Presidential Election when I supported the re election bid of President George W. Bush. I registered only as a Republican at that time so that I could cast a ballot in the Republican party primary. Once I learned that you could vote in either party's primary as an Independent in the state of New Jersey, I quickly re-declared myself an Independent.

 

I have privately supported candidates from the Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties.

patriot:

"A government that barely escapes being no government at all."

 

I seek a limited constitutional government that I believe the Framing Generation intended for this nation. I like a federal government that provides police, military, traffic lights, and a missile defense system. Not much else. This is a humorous way of writing that I trust the individual more than I trust the federal government.

patriot:

I do support the war on terrorism, and separately, believe the Iraq war was a noble endeavor, to bring liberty and freedom to a people shackled under the shadow of tyranny. History may (and probably will) judge me wrong. Even if the action falls short of the intention, the nobility of the act itself is not diminished.

Given the immortality of the written word, it might be worth taking a step back, and making sure that what you write is really something you want to inflict on future generations...

But, that's just my view...

Hello Everyone :)

Thank you all for welcoming me. I will certainly “drop by” from time to time, although my current workload will prevent my consistent participation. I have not had the opportunity to engage in discussions with Anarcho-Capitalists very often, so it has been interesting to read over some of the discussions.

I will address each question posed. I do share some core beliefs with “classic” Minarchism, although I base my political philosophy upon my core belief philosophy of rights theory, and sometimes Minarchists, as conceived of by Samuel Edward Konkin III, do not necessarily base their political philosophy on a foundation of individual rights theory.

I am an advocate of free will, therefore I prefer labeling my political philosophy as that of a libertarian, as first proposed by Dean Russell and Leonard Read. My moral philosophy informs my political philosophy. All of this you know already, so I digress.

Could you explain why it is you have such a dislike of political party affiliations? Also, what is it about George W. Bush that motivated you to actually 'hold your nose' and register Republican, just to vote for him (when you thought you might have to)?

I have a general dislike of political affiliations because I believe it too often times, by no means always, encourages “group think” mentality. I prefer to obtain knowledge independently, and after contemplation, arrive at my own beliefs. Furthermore, political parties in the United States are often broad based coalitions and are not strongly ideological entities; their purpose for existence is to achieve electoral success. I support and vote for individuals, not a political party. This of course, could change through out my life.

To understand my support for President George W. Bush, you first have to understand certain circumstances of my life. I attended school in Manhattan, and was in New York City on the 11^th of September. I was a first hand witness to the horrors of that day. That singular event deeply altered the course of my life forever. As it did for all Americans, I’m certain. I was born in a post Cold War America, and grew up in a country largely at peace. Save for the Gulf War, I had not lived during a time in which America was at war. Suddenly, on that day, my illusion of innocence came crashing down. Evil crashed like waves upon our shores, and as a people we were suddenly at war with an enemy that had been plotting war on us for decades, while we existed in a state of ignorant bliss.

I believe President Bush acted with strength, and with the kind of greatness that is called upon of the occupants of the presidency. I fully understand this is not a belief held by many, and accept that. The 2004 presidential election was the first presidential election in which I was of voting age. I believed that President Bush was the best person to lead the nation through the uncertain waters ahead, particularly when contrasted with Senator Kerry. I also believed that President Bush offered a philosophy that more closely mirrored my own, that of fiscal discipline and limited constitutional government, in relative contrast to his Democrat opponent. This obviously turned out not to be the reality in retrospect, with little doubt, the scope and spending of the federal government has only grown, rather than recede. Despite this, I did not hold my nose to vote for President Bush then, and given the same two major party candidates today, I would not hesitate to cast my ballot the same way.  As I explained, registering Republican was a matter based solely on practicality, I wished to have a voice in the state party’s primary, and I believed mistakenly at the time, that this required my declaring an affiliation in my state. I am an unaffiliated citizen.

Can you explain in more detail what you believe the 'framing generation' intended, and how you came to those conclusions?

I believe the ‘framing’, or ‘founding’ generation intended a limited constitutional Republic. If we can keep it, as Mr. Franklin famously quipped. I have evaluated the writings, official, unofficial, public, private, and personal of the Framers and believe that although they differed greatly at times on how to achieve the ‘ideal’ iteration, there was generally a consensus among them for a republican government. Carefully evaluating, and following the words of the constitution, which I believe libertarians should consider their guiding ‘North Star’, I believe it clearly calls for a Republic.

If I may be Socratic for a moment, Mr. Gauthier, and pose a question to you, from what source do you derive your personal philosophy that, those grappling with what governing model our country would utilize, intended an Anarcho-Capitalistic governing system? There might perhaps be echoes of limited elements of Anarcho –Capitalism in the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Paine and others, but is it your contention that our governing system was to be that of Anarcho-Capitalism? And if so, where are the private protection agencies and privatized defense force agencies set forth in any of our governance charters? I ask this not to be antagonistic in any manner whatsoever, only to inform my own knowledge on how Anarcho-Capitalists reconcile their political philosophy with that of our framers.

Can you explain why you believe the war on terror, and the attack on Iraq, will expand freedom? Also, could you tell me how it is to be considered 'noble' to cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, in the name of 'expanding freedom'?

I support the war in Iraq because I view it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic extremists/jihadists, who are independent of any nation’s government, and who wish to attack the United States. The larger war of self-defense itself is the war against Islamic extremists. This larger war of self-defense became necessary when America was attacked without provocation on the 11^th of September. I believe the United States government claims a monopoly on providing for national defense/security, by claiming billions of tax dollars for this purpose, and therefore is justified in using military force in self-defense to repel foreign attacks. All libertarians believe in the fundamental right of self-defense, a micro-example of this is the absolute right to keep and maintain arms, however, good-intentioned libertarians will differ greatly on what constitutes appropriate, measured, moral, and ethical self-defense in the aftermath of an attack. Admittedly, many libertarians believe the Iraq war is a war of aggression, which violates the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism. I believe it is the result of a continued and pressing war of self-defense for the reasons I have outlined above. I believe fighting Islamic extremists abroad, who wish and declare openly to attack our sovereign territory, are included in such a war of self-defense.

In regard to Iraq, I believe the United States had just moral and legal cause take military action against the Saddam Hussein regime. The regime constantly and continuously violated its Gulf War ceasefire by firing on U.S air patrols, patrols allowed for in the ceasefire agreement, and its repeated violations of denying access to weapons inspections. The regime was ‘permitted’ to stay in power only on the fulfillment of these and other conditions that the regime never met, or outright violated. These repeated and constant violations, therefore, made it legally, and in my belief morally, justifiable to remove the regime by means of the use of force. The war has without question been mangled, and in retrospect our blood and treasure could have been better, more wisely, and more prudently spent and shed.

The Hussein regime was responsible for wide ranging and well-documented atrocities on its own people. It is a noble endeavor when an American soldier lays down his or her life so that an Iraqi may one day perhaps have even the slightest chance and hope of living in freedom. By your argument, it was not ‘noble’ to liberate millions of Jewish people and others from the Nazi regime, because thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent civilians were killed during the struggle of liberation. I find that to be less than firm moral ground. It is terrible when an innocent life is taken, but all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If you’re accusing American soldiers of systematic war crimes or crimes against humanity, I’m afraid we part ways philosophically here as well.

Given the immortality of the written word, it might be worth taking a step back, and making sure that what you write is really something you want to inflict on future generations...

            To this I can only echo the words of Thomas Paine written to Samuel Adams,

“If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and this is all that it proves.”

Mr. Molyneux, firstly, thank you for sharing my article, I appreciate it very much. To your question:

Hi Ryan - would you agree with the statement that it's immoral to force people to support the Iraq war?

            Yes. It is immoral to force people to support the Iraq war. I foresee a philosophical ‘trap’ being laid out for me here with your question so I hesitate to expand further.

            To Mr. “Eliiswyatt”, who declared:

The fact that the article was written by a war hawk suggests to me that a bit of fact checking ought to be done.

                My Native American name is actually ‘dove with sharp talons’, not ‘war hawk’. Kidding aside, please be cautious when calling others names. It detracts from your argument and reflects more on the person calling another a name than upon the individual being called a name.

            Any fact checking can be done through the following links if you have any concerns:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

http://afk.townhall.com/g/446a37bc-aa95-4a34-94c1-7643aabd2b7b

Thank you all once again and I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. If I do not respond to any further points, it is not due to a lack of desire to pursue those points further, it is only  a reflection that my workload prevents me from responding.

Best Regards,

Ryan.