Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?

[brandon]

Earlier this year Ron Paul authored some Keynesian bill similar to cash for clunkers


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/efficientcars.shtml


Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul is urging his colleagues in congress to cosponsor his legislation HR 1768 the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act.

This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible.

“Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices,” Congressman Paul stated in a letter to his congressional colleagues.

Congressman Paul has frequently made the case for the free market and private property rights in protecting the environment, and has signed the Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” Pledge. This pledge states that “climate change legislation should not be used as a guise to fund a massive increase in the size and scope of government…” and reaffirms Congressman Paul’s promise to vote against any legislation related to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.

Now he has a video on CFL bashing cash for clunkers. Admittedly, I didn't watch the video yet because I'm at work. But this seems like some pretty extreme hypocrisy

YouTube - Campaign for Liberty = Ron Paul ob Cash for Clunkers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_rvbCwIm7o)


What's up with this, Ron Paul?

[acptulsa]

Same fight. Denounce the subsidy, and show how you can accomplish the same incentive by using tax cuts instead of giving borrowed money away. Not a purely libertarian solution, but makes a point. He keeps trying to meet those crooks half way--much the same way he meets his constituents half way by making earmarks then voting against them.

That's the way politics is. He's trying to be a better horse trader. Denounce him for you if you must, but he had to do what he had to do to make a tiny bit of progress--and keep getting reelected--all those years.

[Mani]

Putting money in the tax payers' pockets without taking it from another tax payer?

How is that a hypocrite?


The problem with clunkers is we are printing money (borrowing it from you and me) and giving it to people who trade in cars.


With his plan all he's doing is giving people tax credits who trade in clunkers. No money came out of my pocket, no money was printed, no debt was created, no billion dollars was spent for the program. All that happened is people who traded in got some tax credits, so they got to keep some of their money from the government.

How is that even the same thing?

[freedoms-light]

I kinda look at it this way...
He has used tax credits in bills before, like the one for police officers to get a credit for their own purchases of bullet proof vests. At least with the bill you mentioned, one would have the freedom to purchase new or used, it would not lock out poorer folks and would make it easier to use the incentive with a cash purchase than if you were required to make a new car purchase like cash for clunkers does. After all, as long as we have the income tax, tax credits keep your money from the governments filthy thieving hands.

[Mani]

I kinda look at it this way...
He has used tax credits in bills before, like the one for police officers to get a credit for their own purchases of bullet proof vests. At least with the bill you mentioned, one would have the freedom to purchase new or used, it would not lock out poorer folks and would make it easier to use the incentive with a cash purchase than if you were required to make a new car purchase like cash for clunkers does. After all, as long as we have the income tax, tax credits keep your money from the governments filthy thieving hands.

Exactly. Ron Paul is the only one battling for us to keep the IRS from taking our money. These tax credits are one of the few weapons we have against them.

[rp08orbust]

I was pretty upset at Ron Paul's own tax credits for clunkers bill a few months ago (I ranted about him "jumping the shark" in chat) because of its market interventionism, but since being persuaded to the Walter Block variety of anarcho-capitalism, I see nothing wrong with either Ron's bill or the cash for clunkers program.

Why? Because neither program involves aggression against any individuals. Both are entirely voluntary. If it wouldn't be wrong for a voluntary government to give out cash for clunkers (it wouldn't), then it's not wrong for a coercive government to do the same. True, all government spending increases the probability of either higher taxes or inflation, but those are not logically necessary consequences (the government could fund the programs by selling off assets, cutting spending elsewhere, conducting voluntary fundraisers, etc)--they are separate acts that should be separately condemned. Even inflation itself isn't inherently evil--evil only enters the picture when government forces us to use its worthless currency at gunpoint.

Since the two cash for clunkers programs are morally neutral, I don't care how Ron Paul votes on them, and do not see any hypocrisy in him preferring one over the other based on consequentialist arguments about one of them hurting the poor more (as in the video), etc.

[Epic]

I was pretty upset at Ron Paul's own tax credits for clunkers bill a few months ago (I ranted about him "jumping the shark" in chat) because of its market interventionism, but since being persuaded to the Walter Block variety of anarcho-capitalism, I see nothing wrong with either Ron's bill or the cash for clunkers program.

Why? Because neither program involves aggression against any individuals. Both are entirely voluntary. If it wouldn't be wrong for a voluntary government to give out cash for clunkers (it wouldn't), then it's not wrong for a coercive government to do the same. True, all government spending increases the probability of either higher taxes or inflation, but those are not logically necessary consequences (the government could fund the programs by selling off assets, cutting spending elsewhere, conducting voluntary fundraisers, etc)--they are separate acts that should be separately condemned. Even inflation itself isn't inherently evil--evil only enters the picture when government forces us to use its worthless currency at gunpoint.

Since the two cash for clunkers programs are morally neutral, I don't care how Ron Paul votes on them, and do not see any hypocrisy in him preferring one over the other based on consequentialist arguments about one of them hurting the poor more (as in the video), etc.

FAIL

The government is taking money from some people and giving it to others. The 4500 dollars per car were taken coercively from taxpayers.

Coercion != Voluntarism

RP's bill, on the other hand, abides by the libertarian ethic, because it is tax credits, not a subsidy funded by taxpayers. And, in RP's bill, the cars aren't destroyed.

[ctiger2]

RP is hardly a hypocrite. His bill was a TAX CREDIT. Essentially his bill was the same as reducing a persons federal income tax they pay into the Govt. Cash for clunkers TAKES money from American citizens and gives it to people as an incentive to go into more debt. With Cash For Clunkers ALL Americans will pay a higher tax to fund the Cash that was given to these people. See the diff?

[rp08orbust]

FAIL

The government is taking money from some people

Which is wrong.


and giving it to others.

Which is neutral, or even good.

You're lumping together two different (even if related) actions. The isolated act of handing out the $4,500 in exchange for a clunker directly harms no one.


The 4500 dollars per car were taken coercively from taxpayers.

It's impossible to say from whom each $4,500 check was taken. Perhaps it came out of the portion of government assets generously donated by the philanthropo-statist Warren Buffet, or any of the millions of Obamabots who voluntarily pay their taxes.

To see where I'm coming from, see my posts in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201547


RP's bill, on the other hand, abides by the libertarian ethic, because it is tax credits, not a subsidy funded by taxpayers.

I agree that it does not violate the libertarian ethic. But at the same time, the tax credits are just as likely to lead to higher taxes (for others) and inflation as the cash for clunkers program that passed.


And, in RP's bill, the cars aren't destroyed.

So what? Cars don't have rights to life. Once any party (even a coercive government) has obtained a car in a voluntary transaction, it has a right to destroy it.

[orafi]

20 percent better fuel mileage isn't saying very much for my car.

[brandon]

Aren't both bills essentially tax credits? I don't see a difference. In both cases the government is giving money to people. Anyone participating in the clunkers program has the means to buy a new car, so I would assume they at least paid a minimum of 4.5k in taxes the previous year. So they are just getting some of their money back.

[brandon]

"Tax credit" Is just a euphemism for the government giving money to people. Even if you have never paid a dime of federal taxes in your life you are still eligible for refundable tax credits.

[rp08orbust]

Aren't both bills essentially tax credits? I don't see a difference. In both cases the government is giving money to people. Anyone participating in the clunkers program has the means to buy a new car, so I would assume they at least paid a minimum of 4.5k in taxes the previous year. So they are just getting some of their money back.

"Tax credit" Is just a euphemism for the government giving money to people. Even if you have never paid a dime of federal taxes in your life you are still eligible for refundable tax credits.

I agree.

[acptulsa]

Well, I'd love to address these concerns, but if this really is HR 1768 it's only an amendment to it. Can't find the full text.

[No1ButPaul08]

Putting money in the tax payers' pockets without taking it from another tax payer

Wrong. As Brandon stated, if you don't pay over 2000 in taxes and receive a $2000 tax credit, you are receiving money from another taxpayer



The problem with clunkers is we are printing money (borrowing it from you and me) and giving it back to people who trade in cars♦

With his plan all he's doing is giving people tax credits who trade in clunkers. No money came out of my pocket, no money was printed, no debt was created, no billion dollars was spent for the program. All that happened is people who traded in got some tax credits, so they got to keep some of their money from the government.

Cash for clunkers is a tax credit. So is RP's bill. The only difference is the amount.


How is that even the same thing?
Well they're not exactly the same, but they are pretty close. Both are terrible bills, with RP's being less worse. Both bills slap the free market in the face.

The biggest difference which makes Cash for Clunkers much worse is the fact that the cars are scraped in the program. I'm in the market for a 3-4k car and the CfC bill just drove the price of those vehicles up. This still does not excuse RP's pathetic bill.

[dannno]

Ron Paul never wanted to DESTROY perfectly working cars. His plan would have kept them on the market while giving people a tax BREAK.

[dannno]

Cash for clunkers is a tax credit. So is RP's bill. The only difference is the amount.



That's complete BOLOGNA, see my post above.

[Kludge]

$10,000,000,000,000 in debt, I don't see how you couldn't see selective tax relief as a collective tax burden.

[dannno]

Cash for Clunkers is like during the depression when the government plowed under crops.

[dannno]

$10,000,000,000,000 in debt, I don't see how you couldn't see selective tax relief as a collective tax burden.

Because the government will have more cash if they didn't pass Ron Paul's bill or any other similar bill and at some point they are likely going to use that as an excuse to increase spending even more.

[dannno]

Do we even know if Ron Paul was going to vote yes on this bill he introduced? Perhaps he only introduced the bill as an alternative to the cash for clunkers program and he planned to vote no on both of them?

[TonySutton]

Don't forget "Cash for Clunkers" is also bringing in at least $4B in new loans for the bankers!

and I think the bankers already got their bail out :(

[ctiger2]

Cash for Clunkers is like during the depression when the government plowed under crops.

Well, destroying the cars in the CFK program is like plowing under crops. The clunkers are working cars that people can still use. It makes no sense to destroy this asset. There are people all over the country that can buy those cars incurring 0 debt and use them.

[No1ButPaul08]

That's complete BOLOGNA, see my post above.

No actually re-read my post where I point out CfC scraps the cars and RP's does not.


Do we even know if Ron Paul was going to vote yes on this bill he introduced? Perhaps he only introduced the bill as an alternative to the cash for clunkers program and he planned to vote no on both of them?

Now this is complete BOLOGNA. Here's what RP had to say about his bill. RP, "Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices,”

The fact that he called this a win for those who favor free market solutions is a disgrace to the free market and Austrian Economics. He should be ashamed of himself as should anyone who supports this bill.

[Austin]

No, I don't think it's hypocritical because the manner in which the money is handled is different.

That said, I do think that Ron Paul's bill is against free market principals. And for that reason, I vehemently disagree with it. One of the very few things I disagree with Paul on to-date.

[gls]

No, I don't think it's hypocritical because the manner in which the money is handled is different.

That said, I do think that Ron Paul's bill is against free market principals. And for that reason, I vehemently disagree with it. One of the very few things I disagree with Paul on to-date.

How is allowing people to keep more of their own money against free market principles? The only thing that is anti free market is the destructive taxation that this bill seeks to mitigate.

[No1ButPaul08]

How is allowing people to keep more of their own money against free market principles? The only thing that is anti free market is the destructive taxation that this bill seeks to mitigate.

It's not just allowing people to keep their own money. It also has the effect of propping up the new car market. This bill says here you can keep 2,000 of your own money (or if you don't pay 2k in taxes, someone else's money) but you have to purchase this $15000 car first.

[acptulsa]

...(or if you don't pay 2k in taxes, someone else's money)...

Show me a link to the text of the bill or I'll assume you're making assumptions.

Generally a two thousand dollar tax credit means two thousand of the dollars you make over a year are tax free, not that you're gettin two grand whether you paid that much or not. I would like to know which before we talk out of our asses some more.

[Austin]

How is allowing people to keep more of their own money against free market principles? The only thing that is anti free market is the destructive taxation that this bill seeks to mitigate.

Ron's bill would have encouraged people to buy things they may not have bought without influence from the bill. That is influence from the government, not the market. Thus, it is against free market principals.

Of course, Ron's bill never passed. And even if it did, it would be a much better alternative to what was passed.

That, however, does not change the fact that Ron's bill should be considered intervention from the government into the free market.

[dannno]

Ron's bill would have encouraged people to buy things they may not have bought without influence from the bill.

You mean WITHOUT THE TAXES?!?!?




That is influence from the government, not the market. Thus, it is against free market principals.


I thought the taxes influenced people NOT to spend?? Isn't this the opposite?


The bill is giving people back THEIR OWN MONEY. Why do you keep saying the bill is encouraging people to buy things that they normally wouldn't have bought if they normally WOULD have bought them if they weren't being taxed out the ass?

[No1ButPaul08]

Show me a link to the text of the bill or I'll assume you're making assumptions.

I looked it up and I think you're right you won't get any extra money. To me that's just a minor part of the bill and just makes it slightly better



Generally a two thousand dollar tax credit means two thousand of the dollars you make over a year are tax free, not that you're gettin two grand whether you paid that much or not. I would like to know which before we talk out of our asses some more.

I don't know about this. It looks like its up to the each individual tax credit rules. For instance the earned income tax credit and child tax credit are paid in full regardless of tax burden. Other credits, like RP's, stop when the burden reaches 0.

I was wrong about RP's bill and thanks pointing it out. Like I said the bill is still a market-distorting disaster.

[dannno]

It's like people here think that taxes are free market or something...

Look, everybody should get that $2k tax break, but congress isn't going to give it to everyone cause they are bastards.. So Ron Paul decides that we should at least give it back to the people who would have bought more environmentally friendly/economical cars in these hard times if it weren't for the damned government being in the way.. he is LEADING US towards a free-er market by giving back some money to some people. It isn't a free market, but it IS a free-er market, it is certainly a compromise I will admit.. but it's NOT hypocritical for someone who votes against all of the spending to vote for a tax cut, even if it's selective.

[dannno]

I was wrong about RP's bill and thanks pointing it out. Like I said the bill is still a market-distorting disaster.


No, you don't get it.. the TAXES are distorting the market, Ron Paul's bill is bringing us back towards center.. it isn't at center, it's a compromise, but it is not hypocritical and it is not anti free market.. giving some people back their own money isn't anti-free market and it is fucking amazing that people here are arguing that it is.

[No1ButPaul08]

The bill is giving people back THEIR OWN MONEY. Why do you keep saying the bill is encouraging people to buy things that they normally wouldn't have bought if they normally WOULD have bought them if they weren't being taxed out the ass?

You cannot possibly know that. How do you know someone would have normally bought a car if they didn't get taxed. Don't forget this bill restricts what kind of car you can buy. Maybe if someone didn't have all these taxes they would prefer a less fuel efficient vehicle with all the extra money they have.

[Austin]

It's like people here think that taxes are free market or something...

Look, everybody should get that $2k tax break, but congress isn't going to give it to everyone cause they are bastards.. So Ron Paul decides that we should at least give it back to the people who would have bought more economical cars in these hard times if it weren't for the damned government being in the way.. he is LEADING US towards a free-er market by giving back some money to some people. It isn't a free market, but it IS a free-er market, it is certainly a compromise I will admit.. but it's NOT hypocritical for someone who votes against all of the spending to vote for a tax cut, even if it's selective.

That's the problem.. Not everyone is getting the money back, it only goes to a select few. That is clearly a distortion of the market.

Also, there is no way to say that everyone who would have taken advantage of this bill would have bought not only a new car, but a more fuel efficient car, would have done so if they had the money. Maybe they would have spent it on paying off some of their debt, or purchasing a junkier car for their son or daughter.

Still, this is much much better than what was passed, don't get me wrong on that.

[acptulsa]

I was wrong about RP's bill and thanks pointing it out. Like I said the bill is still a market-distorting disaster.

Agreed. He was obviously playing politics. Look, what you're proposing is wrong on so many levels. If you're convinced you must do something even if it's dead wrong, well, let me come up with something that isn't free market, but isn't strictly unConstitutional either...

[No1ButPaul08]

No, you don't get it.. the TAXES are distorting the market, Ron Paul's bill is bringing us back towards center.. it isn't at center, it's a compromise, but it is not hypocritical and it is not anti free market.. giving some people back their own money isn't anti-free market and it is fucking amazing that people here are arguing that it is.

Having to spend money to get your own money back has nothing to do with the free market. Do you just ignore the part of the bill that props up banks and the automobile market? There's nothing free market about that. You have no clue how people would spend the money with out the tax credit. To argue people would buy a car anyway is just ridiculous.

[Kludge]

Perhaps a better title would be "Does Ron Paul believe the national debt is legitimate?".

[acptulsa]

Perhaps a better title would be "Does Ron Paul believe the national debt is legitimate?".

Huh?

John McCain is probably legitimate, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a bastard.

[No1ButPaul08]

To put my Peter Schiff hat on, these bills are the last things we need. I'm all for tax credits (and so is Peter), but we do not need policies encouraging Americans to go greater into debt.

[brandon]

Generally a two thousand dollar tax credit means two thousand of the dollars you make over a year are tax free, not that you're gettin two grand whether you paid that much or not. I would like to know which before we talk out of our asses some more.


There are two kinds of tax credits. Refundable and non refundable. A refundable tax credit will be paid out to you even if you didn't pay that much in taxes for the year.