Ron Paul Voted To Deprive Arnold Palmer Of A Much Needed $30,000 Medal!
Reader Bruce left me with no choice but to post the Ron Paul-votes-against-The King story that I had avoided. After all we've done enough politics this week, though the details are quite entertaining.
Ben Goad writes this about the 422-1 vote for Arnold Palmer's Congressional Gold Medal:
Here's the explanation from Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills:
"It is certainly nothing personal against Mr. Palmer. In fact, Congressman Paul admires him greatly. Dr. Paul opposes using public monies for any and all of these gold medals given to private citizens, just on principle. Not to mention, it is unconstitutional to use taxpayer dollars in this way. He even suggested on the House Floor before he voted against Rosa Parks's medal that if it meant so much to the Members of Congress, why not fund the award out of their own pockets? He pulled $100 out of his own wallet, but had no other takers. At a time like this when all budgets are stretched so thin, it seems especially inappropriate to lavish gifts like this on private citizens, as much as he may admire the individual."
The legislation authorizes the expenditure of $30,000 to make the medal and duplicate bronze versions, which could then be sold to cover the cost.
Kevin Robbins posted the item and judging by the comments, most of Texas agrees with Paul's position.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Reader Comments (4)
With Arnold's popularity I can't understand why they don't amend the bill and allow for MORE of them to be made... the Congress might actually then have passed a bill that would MAKE the taxpayer's money...
The making of the bronze medals to cover the cost is really just a smokescreen, as they don't really sell enough to cover the cost of the original medal. It's just there to shut people up.
Regardless, Paul's point is that this is not one of the things that Congress is allowed to spend money on. His purpose it to protect us all from the abuses of government from which most of us suffer.