Posted on 03/11/2009 6:56:34 PM PDT by pissant
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. ...
I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
“What do you have against taxpayers keeping some of their money?”
He gets to pick the taxpayers he likes
This is something I’ve been confused about. This used to be one of the things that bothered me about Paul, but I’m not totally sure how this earmark process works. The situation I associate with pork is when a congressman agrees to support a bill if spending for their district is added to the bill.
From what is sounds like he’s saying, an “earmark” is just some part of the bill that has an allotted amount of money (whether that’s ‘pork’ or spending on government salaries), so that way everyone can see where that money is going. Without the earmark,the spending would not be transparent.
The other thing it sounds like he’s saying is that there is a certain amount allocated for the bill and that the money will be spent whether or not he earmarks it to his district. If not him, for instance, the money would still be spent, perhaps in another district, or at the discretion of the executive branch, with less transparency.
My original interpretation can’t really be applicable because Paul never votes for these bills. If he never votes for them even when these earmarks go to his district, then why give him the earmarks at all, unless the money is already appropriated to the bill? Even then though I’m still not sure how it is decided who gets the how much for their districts. I’m confused about the whole issue now.
I don’t believe spending like this is constitutional, but if the money is already appropriated then I can’t blame him for trying to get a piece for his district.
Of course, he’s right to try to return hatever tax money to his constituents that he can if he can’t cut their taxes in the first place. At least he votes against the bills. If only the senate Republicans did the same.
People who are critical of Paul for earmarking money for his own district while voting against the bill are the same people who chastise Republicans for not surrendering under term limits when they get the majority.
“...only have a small percentage returned to us...”
I saw Tim Pawlenty on one of the talk shows discussing whether he would take the federal stimulus funds. He said he would take the funds, because his state only gets back 73 cents of every dollar they send to Washington.
Limit stimulus funds to the amount that each state has sent to Washington. Or better yet, don’t take the money from the states to begin with.
Sooper! Always wondered what I am, now I know.
Please help me understand earmarks.
I’m being serious.
Is it like this...?
A bill is about to be voted on - say 100 mil. for education - the amount to be voted on is set at 100 mil. - but the terms of spending are very broad - reps put in “earmarks” for stuff they want - might be stupid and wasteful, might not be stupid and wasteful - does the 100 mil. amount grow with each proposed earmark - or is it just a way of tagging a portion of the bill for something specific - while the rest just gets spent in whatever way the executive branch chooses?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear things up for me.
He submits every single request for an earmark that his office receives, no matter how silly.
I need to request my money before he can give it back to me?
It’s Paul’s fault the Republican party has been commandeered by neo-cons?
I see the Pauliroids seem to be delayed. Must take some time to clear the ole’ noggin’...
Exactly.
None of the Paul-bashers will step forward to clear this up for you.
Doesn’t anyone else find it curious that Ron Paul, who has spoken out against AND voted against so many federal spending bills over the years (and touched a few third rails in doing so), receives such an inordinate amount of negative attention and ridicule from establishment conservatives and neocons?
Opponents of earmarks want the executive branch to have all the spending power.
ROFLMAO! Well done, mnehring.
You just KNOW this is false, because it contains an accusation of “grandstanding” against the ever-humble and self-effacing John McCain.
LOL
Every thing L.Ron knows about national defense he learned while doing pap smears.
Why is the headline buried? Because too many Republicans are playing McCain's stupid little penny-ante "war on earmarks" game. Earmarks are a tiny percentage of federal spending, and as Ron Paul argues, at least they are transparent and more likely to result in money being returned to the people who paid it than welfare payments and most of the other federal expenditures.
Meanwhile, McCain is one of the dipstick Republicans who passed that stupid TARP boondoggle and gave the big spending Democrats carte blanche to spend America into the economic disaster that Ron Paul warned us about during the Republican presidential debates (while the party herd was backing business as usual types like McCain and Romney).
He is an elected representative. How do you propose Constitutional government should work?
Apparently the federal reserve should get everything, in your mind. They DO own the ‘money’ after all. We just get promissory notes from our Treasury department.
Such a deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.