The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks (WSJ letters demolish earmark lie)

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | 18 AUGUST 2007 | WALL STREET JOURNAL

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several legislative earmarks intended to fund government activity inconsistent with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an important mitigating factor which your editorial ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the earmarked bills.

In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of legislation that allows for the inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BTTT

[Darkwolf377]

...in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.

This is exactly the problem, though. People say they don't want Big Government controlling our lives, our taxes, our retirement, but no one will say THEY will pass up using these services.

This is PRECISELY what the creators of these programs wanted--push something we're philosophically opposed to, but once we're hooked, we'll continue to fund it, since "everyone else" is.

The behavior described above is the exact opposite of leadership.

[The_Victor]

In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of legislation that allows for the inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.

Funny, the "everyone else is doing it" excuse never played with my parents...

[org.whodat]

Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending,

Another way of saying we're not going to cut back on spending and therefore, we fully intend to spend it one way are the other.

[Bernard]

It may not have played with your parents, but is seems to play with the local papers in my area. Even the conservative ones always start an endorsement editorial with how much government money the incumbent has brought back from the level of government they are involved in.

And then the next day the same paper criticizes the same government for spending too much money. It's almost like a different editorial group takes over and feels no need for consistency.

[Darkwolf377]

Another way of saying we're not going to cut back on spending and therefore, we fully intend to spend it one way are the other.

Yeah, that line cracked me up, too. "Welllll, the money's just SITTIN' there, so of COURSE I had to spend it!"

Great response Ron Paul is getting around here, huh? LOL

[End Times Crusader]

Please show me where in the Constitution earmarks are authorized? Thank you.

[End Times Crusader]

Tick tock
tick tock /waiting patiently

[Allerious]

You're missing the point. The money has already been taken out of the budget and WILL be spent - if not in Ron's district, then in someone else's. There is absolutely no way to affect change in spending by refraining from earmarks. Were that not the case, you could be sure that Ron Paul would abstain from participating in the system, as he does in all such instances.

Earmarks are the RIGHT THING to do within the WRONG SYSTEM.
The flak that Ron Paul is taking over this issue serves as an example of the "bait and switch" tactics that are used to uphold the system while giving people the impression that "something is being done".

Ron Paul is not a hypocrite. His use of earmarks does nothing to damage his pro-Constitution image.

[Darkwolf377]

The flak that Ron Paul is taking over this issue serves as an example of the "bait and switch" tactics that are used to uphold the system while giving people the impression that "something is being done".

Nice try.

What good are his supposed "principles" when he doesn't even live up to them when it's the DIFFICULT thing to do?

If money were being given out to fund "free" abortions in his districts, would he apply for that? Why not, since it would be given to SOMEONE'S district if not his?