What earmark has Paul voted for again?
“What earmark has Paul voted for again?”
Ron Paul’s Earmarks
WSJ
8/6/07
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html
Texas Congressman Ron Paul — libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful — has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can’t resist the political allure of earmarks.
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”
(Snip)
________________________________________
Ron Paul defends earmarks, says anti-pork McCain is just grandstanding
LA Times Blog
3/11/09
Ron Paul the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.
That’s not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That’s what Fox News is reporting.
In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, Paul not only defended his own earmarks, he argued that every penny in the federal budget should be earmarked, to improve transparency.
Paul, a fiscal watchdog who said he voted against the bill because he believes federal spending is out of control, acknowledged that $73 million in the bill passed by his colleagues “might be” going to his district on Texas’ Gulf Coast for things like the intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake. But he was fine with that, noting that he always votes for tax credits, not matter how “silly,” to return money to the constituents who sent their tax dollars to Washington.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. ...
(Snip)
He inserts the earmarks, but then votes against them. Which is rank hypocrisy, because he knows they will still pass. And Paultards taking such as principled behavior makes them hypocrites as well.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/03/10/ron-paul-defends-earmarks-on-cavuto/4710/
Ron Paul appeared on FOX Today with Neil Cavuto where the Cavuto raked Paul over the coals due to him putting in millions of dollars worth of earmarks in the budget bill. Of course, Paul does so because he feels obligated to represent his constituents wishes and the money has already been collected. It does not increase the budget. In the end, the bottom line is that Ron Paul votes against the bill because he feels it is not the proper role for the Federal government.
These are all interesting arguments, but there are still many Paul supporters who do not agree with this practice. Some think his explanation for putting in the earmarks is fine. Those people are angry with Cavuto for subjecting Paul to this scrutiny. All I see is Cavuto doing his job and not playing favorites (he’s been very favorable toward Paul in the past).
I must admit that Paul’s position on earmarks is something I can’t quite get behind. I accept his reasoning and the fact that he votes against them, but it is hard for me to accept that he requests them in the first place, while claiming he is for limited government and following the Constitution.
There are few areas where I disagree with Dr. Paul. This is one of them