Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

[JRyan]

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

For Immediate Release
March 1, 2010

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.

 

[sportycliff]

Wish he had a shot at the presidency...

 

[Bob J]

Boy you got that right..... Really too bad..... He'd be a serious threat to the powers that be so he has zero chance.....

Wish he had a shot at the presidency...

 

[Zarathustra11]

he already is, and at this point, I think he's more potent where he is as running for President would make him beholden to special interests financing the campaign, he is certainly one of the most consistent and respectable politicians I've come across.

 

[pbearperry]

If we don't vote for Ron Paul he has no chance.

 

[RI_John]

If we don't vote for Ron Paul he has no chance.

RP is too old. Sadly. But for those of us who are Libertarians that actually want to support a candidate that has a fighting chance, keep an eye on Gary Johnson. Former 2-term Republican Governor of New Mexico. Though not a true Libertarian, he's the closest thing there is who is actually electable. A dark horse candidate for sure, social conservatives dislike him because he is for smaller, non-intrusive Federal government. The Tea Party movement is warming up to him as a potential candidate. Assuming the country continues down the path it's on and there isn't some miracle economic recovery, watch out for him in 2012.

 

[AppleSeeds]

This is excellent.

 

[terraformer]

At least he is not a hypocrite. So many of the other small government ones are. Also, I hope he is not doing this on the backs of his staff via pay cuts. That is not frugality.

 

[Knob Creek]

I'm surprised there is even a process to return money to the Treasury!

 

[AppleSeeds]

At least he is not a hypocrite. So many of the other small government ones are. Also, I hope he is not doing this on the backs of his staff via pay cuts. That is not frugality.

Why not? Let's say they are pay cuts, why is that so bad?

Why shouldn't government wages be determined by market forces, current economic conditions, and supply/demand like they are determined in private industry? If he can hire competent staff, retain them, and provide services that meet the demands of his "customers" what's the issue?

 

[TomH]

At least he is not a hypocrite. So many of the other small government ones are. Also, I hope he is not doing this on the backs of his staff via pay cuts. That is not frugality.

You're right, it isn't frugality. When the economy is in the crapper, and the country is fed up with Congress and all governmental spending, pay cuts are called responsible and economical. So what if he and his staff will make less? They still have jobs, in a terrible recession. He is probably the only Congressman who advocates reducing the money spent instead of ballooning it somehow.

 

[terraformer]

Why not? Let's say they are pay cuts, why is that so bad?

Why shouldn't government wages be determined by market forces, current economic conditions, and supply/demand like they are determined in private industry? If he can hire competent staff, retain them, and provide services that meet the demands of his "customers" what's the issue?

You're right, it isn't frugality. When the economy is in the crapper, and the country is fed up with Congress and all governmental spending, pay cuts are called responsible and economical. So what if he and his staff will make less? They still have jobs, in a terrible recession. He is probably the only Congressman who advocates reducing the money spent instead of ballooning it somehow.

Because it takes zero effort and intelligence to cut salaries in order to save money. But it is not true frugality when every other staffer on the hill is paid x and this guy pays x-%. Labor costs have been the bugaboo of supposed capitalism loving conservatives for years now and it is bull shit to say that labor costs are the root of all ills. I love when the auto industry and the airline industry trot out the cost of labor as the reason for their problems. Ever calculate what it costs the airline to fly cross country on plane x? I have. Labor is 2% of the direct cost (ie; the flight crew). It's all hardware and fuel. There is obvious support costs, etc but the reality is, the vast majority of the cost is in fuel. There is a VC firm who owns a crapload of planes they lease to airlines. They refuse to buy boeing because boeing thumbs it's nose about fuel efficiency. When they work out the CBA for these planes they paid particular attention to fuel costs.

Anyhow, labor costs are all fine and dandy when it's the little guy. When the banks lose money and still payout bonuses that's just retention of valuable labor. Or the lavish get togethers in Hawaii, etc. Well guess what, the line worker is valuable too. So threatening a low income worker to take a pay cut or leave is easy to do because it never impacts the short term. I am not suggesting people have a god given right to a job at a certain salary. But I am saying that true frugality means not wasting money, not just redistributing it to those with control.

BTW: His salary is controlled by law. He will make the same regardless. His staff not so much.

 

[AppleSeeds]

I don't disagree with you that every worker has value. An airline can't fly a place cross country without any one of the pieces you mentioned: the people, the plane, the fuel, etc. However, each worker's value should be determined by the market not by some arbitrary force in the sky.

At least for now, people are still free to seek employment anywhere they wish. Every interview is a two way street where the company evaluates the potential employee and vice versa. Once that's done, the employer makes an offer. As far as I'm aware nothing forces the acceptance of said offer and most employment is also at will meaning if you take the job and start to feel underpaid you are free to head out and seek other employment.

As far as these moron banks, I felt strongly that compensation was all their own business until they screwed it up so bad that they needed taxpayer dollars in order to survive. Clearly something was off if these people were taking huge bonuses when their company wasn't doing well. Had nature been allowed to take its course, these companies would have been weeded out and their shareholders (for whom the value is created) would have learned an expensive lesson and not repeated it. I don't support bailouts for anyone, anytime, anywhere.

 

[buketduder]

Maybe his son Rand will get elected to the Senate...then President..