Ron Paul, big-government libertarian

WaPo ^ | 01/03/2011 | Marc A. Thiessen

[Responsibility2nd]

In a recent column, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared Rep. Ron Paul “a consistent champion of smaller government” who votes against “virtually every piece of legislation that could be interpreted as government overreach or interference with the free market.”

There one small problem with the analysis: It ignores the fact that Paul is one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers on Capitol Hill.

The Texas Republican defends his record, telling Fox News’s Neil Cavuto in a 2009 interview that “earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more.” And besides, he explained, he votes “no” on all his own earmarks anyway. “I think you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve never voted for an appropriations bill.”

But that is exactly the point. His strategy is to stuff legislation with earmarks that benefit his constituents and thus his reelection, and then vote against the overall bill — knowing full well it will pass over his objections — so he can claim to have opposed all the spending in the first place.

Consider Paul’s record. The libertarian Reason magazine points out that in 2009 Paul voted against a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that passed over his objections. But the magazine notes (quoting the Houston Chronicle) that “Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill.”

Thus Paul got to have it both ways: He could claim to have voted against a $410 billion taxpayer boondoggle, while simultaneously vacuuming up tens of millions in taxpayer dollars for his congressional district.

[Responsibility2nd]

I can see it now. As president - he will send Congress a budget - that he will veto.

[jmc813]

[basil]

This Texan has never been a big Ron Paul fan............

[hosepipe]

Some politicians are for ear marks.. others are for chin marks, shoulder shrug marks, wiggle marks, finger marks, toe marks, wink marks.. head bob marks, high five marks, and groin pump marks..

It looks like Tourette Syndrome marks to me...
Could be something is wrong with you to even want to be a Federal Official..

[Opinionated Blowhard]

I won’t be voting for Paul either but he is the only candidate to lay out a detailed plan to cut spending and balance the budget without tax increases. I wish the other candidates would have the guts to lay out a detailed spending plan. Paul is a very credible candidate when it comes to having a specific plan to reduce spending and the size of government. Too bad his other ideas are so off the wall.

[distressed]

I won’t be voting for Paul either but he is the only candidate to lay out a detailed plan to cut spending and balance the budget without tax increases. I wish the other candidates would have the guts to lay out a detailed spending plan. Paul is a very credible candidate when it comes to having a specific plan to reduce spending and the size of government.

Exactly right. We're too far into this for nibbling around the edges of our federal government's spending problem. Cutting x amount "over 10 years" is nothing more than cowardly kicking the can down the road.

Paul's call $1 trillion in spending cuts in year 1 and the elimination of five Cabinet departments is a good start...whether or not this can be done politically now...these are the magnitude of cuts that need to become part of the discourse.

[TheOldLady]

I May Be a Birdbrain
But Smart FReepers Donate Monthly
To Abolish FReepathons

[SaxxonWoods]

“I can see it now. As president - he will send Congress a budget - that he will veto...” and Congress will override.

FIFY :)

Of course he won’t be President. America is not going to elect a man who will turn 80 during his first term in office.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Agree. Spending cuts down the road don’t happen. And even if Paul’s budget is a “non-starter” with a Dem controlled Senate, at least its a starting point for negotiations. Unless you ask for it, you won’t get it. And someone has to be able to make the case that spending increased by $1 trillion per year over the past couple years so decreasing it by $1 trillion per year immediately is not some horrible cut.

[Shery]

Inserting 22 earmarks into an appropriations bill, then voting against it so you can keep a clean record of voting against them? This is TRUE hypocrisy! Ron Paul thy name is HYPOCRITE!