Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

[Midwest Lib]

Paul (TX14) - Press Releases - Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

"

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

"

Just a press release, so if this isn't considered breaking news, then please move it, but reading this gave me at least a little bit of hope. Now if we could only get the rest of congress to act in the same manner we may have a chance!

 

[Ethereal]

A man of integrity.

 

[Midwest Lib]

If only a prevalent party existed that was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I'd be a happy man!

In all honesty though, I do respect Ron Paul's character and policy. Having voted for Obama in the past election, I believe I would have to change my vote to Paul for '12. That having been said, I'm never going to put that (R) next to me name!

 

[First Thought]

What? A politician who actually dislikes the government giving him money? Why has no one heard of this amazing man who is more fiscally responsible than most Democrats and Republicans combined? If only he'd run for POTUS.

 

[Midwest Lib]

What? A politician who actually dislikes the government giving him money? Why has no one heard of this amazing man who is more fiscally responsible than most Democrats and Republicans combined? If only he'd run for POTUS.

There is hope! Rep. Ron Paul surprise winner of CPAC presidential straw poll - CNN.com

"Reflecting the college atmosphere of the annual event, young people dominated the voting: 54 percent of participants were between the ages of 18 and 25."

That line at least makes me realize that grassroots politics can actually work and that there is some concern of fiscal responsibility in the younger generations.

 

[RightinNYC]

FWIW, he's not alone in this.

Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses - WSJ.com

Each House office receives between $1.3 million and $1.9 million annually in government funds to pay for office expenses, including salaries. In 2008, some lawmakers returned excess cash to the government, including Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican (who also gave some bonuses) and Rep. Tim Walz, a Minnesota Democrat. Meredith Salsbery, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walz, said aides are asked to be "thrifty and conscious of taxpayer dollars" and that Mr. Walz "knows the power of setting a good example."

The 435 House offices typically return a total of about $1 million or $2 million a year, or less that 0.5% of the overall budget for office expenses

Given his general message, this is probably a pretty good PR move on his part.

 

[Ethereal]

FWIW, he's not alone in this.

Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses - WSJ.com



Given his general message, this is probably a pretty good PR move on his part.

I agree, but there's nothing wrong with good PR when you're doing the right thing.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I wouldn't really call an annual SOP a "PR move." More like idealism at work...

 

[Deuce]

If only he didn't support ruinous economic policies like going back to the gold standard and a regressive "fair tax." I like the guy.

 

[phattonez]

If only he didn't support ruinous economic policies like going back to the gold standard and a regressive "fair tax." I like the guy.

:yawn: How terrible that we would only be taxed by our consent and not through inflation.

 

[Deuce]

:yawn: How terrible that we would only be taxed by our consent and not through inflation.

What are you talking about?

 

[NoJingoLingo]

If only he didn't support ruinous economic policies like going back to the gold standard and a regressive "fair tax." I like the guy.

Don't worry, our corpracongress would never allow the gold standard or any major revision of the IRS or the tax code. Too many businesses rely on the status quo in these areas.

 

[hazlnut]

Paul (TX14) - Press Releases - Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

"

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

"

Just a press release, so if this isn't considered breaking news, then please move it, but reading this gave me at least a little bit of hope. Now if we could only get the rest of congress to act in the same manner we may have a chance!

If I move to Texas to vote for this guy, do I have to join a cult?

Good for him!

 

[Deuce]

Don't worry, our corpracongress would never allow the gold standard or any major revision of the IRS or the tax code. Too many businesses rely on the status quo in these areas.

A gold standard switch just wouldn't work. The US government does not possess the amount of gold that would be required to cover the already-existing currency. You'd end up eroding the faith required for our currency to function. All it takes is one contractor to say "I don't want the cash, I want the gold, but you don't actually have it." Work stops. Everyone else follows suit, because hey, why work if you aren't actually getting paid?

The "fair tax" is an extraordinarily regressive 23% federal sales tax. Good luck, poor people! The price of everything just shot up.

 

[Panache]

A gold standard switch just wouldn't work. The US government does not possess the amount of gold that would be required to cover the already-existing currency. You'd end up eroding the faith required for our currency to function. All it takes is one contractor to say "I don't want the cash, I want the gold, but you don't actually have it." Work stops. Everyone else follows suit, because hey, why work if you aren't actually getting paid?

I think you are confused about the point of hard currency as opposed to fiat currency. If we had commodity backed currency, it would be impossible for what you are describing to occur, since the value of the currency would be tied to, and limited by, the value of the commodity.

It would mean that the government couldn't just decide to spend money they don't have, then tell the Federal Reserve to print some more out of thin air so that they can spend it. This would be cool.

In fact, the return to the gold standard which you are describe is exactly what he said he didn't want to see happen:

"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."

 

[Panache]

The "fair tax" is an extraordinarily regressive 23% federal sales tax. Good luck, poor people! The price of everything just shot up.

This concern has already been addressed by the proposed fair tax:

The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

This concern has already been addressed by the proposed fair tax:

The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.

And conservatives are on board with this redistribution of wealth?

 

[Panache]

And conservatives are on board with this redistribution of wealth?

It isn't really a redistribution. Read again:

a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate

Poor people aren't the only one's getting a rebate. Everyone gets a rebate equaling poverty level expenditures, so that effectively only expenditures beyond that are taxed.

It is essentially a luxury tax.

 

[American]

:yawn: How terrible that we would only be taxed by our consent and not through inflation.

Deuce thinks it's the govt money.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce thinks it's the govt money.

American has no idea what Deuce thinks and should never speak on that subject again.

I think people who vote for representatives need to stop complaining about not being represented.

 

[NoJingoLingo]

It isn't really a redistribution. Read again:



Poor people aren't the only one's getting a rebate. Everyone gets a rebate equaling poverty level expenditures, so that effectively only expenditures beyond that are taxed.

It is essentially a luxury tax.

Oh no, it's taking tax money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't. It's the classic repub representation of redistributing wealth.

 

[Panache]

Oh no, it's taking tax money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't. It's the classic repub representation of redistributing wealth.

How do you figure? If nobody has to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend each year, then the law is being applied to everyone.

If poor people didn't have to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend but rich people did, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

The fair tax wouldn't even require that I report all my income, or my financial situation. It would be more respectful of my privacy, and without knowing whether I was rich or poor, how could it discriminate?

 

[Midwest Lib]

How do you figure? If nobody has to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend each year, then the law is being applied to everyone.

If poor people didn't have to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend but rich people did, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

The fair tax wouldn't even require that I report all my income, or my financial situation. It would be more respectful of my privacy, and without knowing whether I was rich or poor, how could it discriminate?

On a percentage basis it is completely undiscriminatory. However, the problem some people see is that a far larger percentage of taxes is paid in by the lower, impoverished sect of society as more of what the pay is actually on products that would be taxed. The "fair tax" is exactly that, but its up to the individual as to whether or not its "just."

 

[Panache]

On a percentage basis it is completely undiscriminatory. However, the problem some people see is that a far larger percentage of taxes is paid in by the lower, impoverished sect of society as more of what the pay is actually on products that would be taxed. The "fair tax" is exactly that, but its up to the individual as to whether or not its "just."

Well, Deuce is claiming that it is too regressive, but NoJingoLingo is claiming that it is a progressive wealth redistribution.

So which is it? Too regressive or too progressive?

 

[American]

How do you figure? If nobody has to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend each year, then the law is being applied to everyone.

If poor people didn't have to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend but rich people did, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

The fair tax wouldn't even require that I report all my income, or my financial situation. It would be more respectful of my privacy, and without knowing whether I was rich or poor, how could it discriminate?

What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul?