As Recess Begins, Spending Spree Continues[Ron Paul]

House.Gov ^ | 06 Aug 2007 | Ron Paul

[billbears]

It amazes me daily of the absolute thickness of some. He passes along the request. He represents the desires and needs of the people who elected him.

Constituent comes into your office and asks for something. It's not your role to tell him no, you pass it along to the committee and they vote on it. The constituent knows you're going to vote no based on principle and going to work against it. But you have done your job on both ends. You have represented the constituent and you have upheld your responsibility to the Constitution. That's about all one can ask from anyone in Washington.

[chesty_puller]

So none of these pork projects will be done?

[dirtboy]

Constituent comes into your office and asks for something. It's not your role to tell him no, you pass it along to the committee and they vote on it.

How about his being the principled Constitutionalist and telling his constituent that the fedgov has no business in providing funds for WILD SHRIMP! marketing.

Nah, Paulie gets to have it both ways - appease his constituents while pretending to be a principled Constitutionalist.

[DugwayDuke]

“B) where it is in the Constitution he’s not supposed to represent his constituency by passing along requests for the government’s ear.”

Since Ron Paul only believes that things specifically enumerated in the Constitution can be Constitutional, then it follows that ‘passing along requests’ is un-Constitutional.

[Martins kid]

You may naively believe all the excuses Ron Paul feeds you but we are NOT buying it!!! Ron Paul is part of the pork problem in Congress whether he votes for it or not. It would not be there for others to vote on IF Ron Paul had not introduced the spending measures.

[Martins kid]

Ron Paul has the responsibility to be HONEST. If he thinks the expenditure is wrong, he should be a “grown up” and say no. BUT noooooooo - Ronnie boy wants it both ways. He deceives the constituent and deceives Congress by putting his name on the measure - all the while he claims he is following the Constitution to keep all you nuts sending him money. Well isn’t that special? Sounds like BAIT and SWITCH to me.

[billbears]

He deceives the constituent and deceives Congress by putting his name on the measure - all the while he claims he is following the Constitution to keep all you nuts sending him money.

Exactly how does he 'deceive' the constituent? The constituent knows how Rep. Paul is going to vote, as he has every year he's been in Congress. And yet he keeps getting elected. Hmmmm....perhaps his constituents are as dumb as you would claim they are.

keep all you nuts sending him money

Oh yes much better we send money to one of those hacks that doesn't even bother talking about limited government any more. Who would you suggest? Freddie the Actor? Or Dunc the Protectionist? Those two seem to be hot these days around here...

[littlepear]

Instead of talking seriously about how we might restore fiscal sanity to the federal budget, the political establishment tries to distract us with phony issues like the debate over “earmarks,” legislative provisions that direct federal money to local projects. One need not look very hard to find examples of abuses of earmarks. But, even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, so spending levels remain the same with or without earmarks.

By eliminating earmarks designated by members of Congress, all we would accomplish would be to transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats and away from elected representatives. In a flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - ***THEIR TAX DOLLARS*** - than if the money is apportioned behind locked doors by bureaucrats.