Posted on 03/17/2009 5:05:03 PM PDT by seanmerc
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a fiscal watchdog, but he placed more earmarks in the recently passed $410 billion spending bill than any other Republican, inserting $73 million into the measure — which he then voted against.
Paul, who sought the Republican presidential nomination last year, acknowledged in an interview with Fox News that the $73 million “might be” going to his Gulf Coast district in Texas for things like the Intracoastal Waterway and the Texas City channel.
“The principle of the earmark is our responsibility,” he said.
“It’s like a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that…
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
What a tool. No matter that we have to pay for him kissing his constituents with our money.
kinda like Dodd inserting protection for AIG’s bonuses and then saying he’s against them.
hey, we’re just stupid taxpayers. He knows how to spend our money better than we can. And if he lets us have our money we are allowed to spend it but only on whatever he likes.
Let the excuses commence in 5...4...3...2...1...
This fool is part of the problem. I suppose it never occurred to him to just not take so much from us in the first place?
With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
He is also for term limits.
I think Ron Paul is right.
He is powerless to stop Washington from stealing all this money in the first place.
If he can get any of it back through earmarks and tax credits, I think he’s doing his job.
He DOES vote against ALL tax increases. And he DOES vote against ALL the spending bills.
All you people griping about him, shove it. He’s not a hypocrite. He’s stealing back whatever he can for his own constituents.
It would be a completely different story if he had EVER voted to RAISE taxes. But he hasn’t.
Ron Paul has NEVER voted to TAKE from you—because he has NEVER voted for a tax increase.
Paul is the true RINO because he is a Libertarian who could not get elected as a Libertarian so he runs as a Republican and over the years has voted against Republican measures a number of times but he brings home the pork to his district so they keep sending him back!
Thank you for opening my eyes... Collectivism Rules!
/do I really need a sarc tag?
No; Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Arlen Specter, etc. are.
...brings home the pork to his district so they keep sending him back!
This is just so....disingenuous. People say this same bullcrap line all the time. Whenever someone gets reelected who uses earmakrs, it is because of "bringing home the bacon" and whenever someone who doesn't use them wins it's because of a "principled stance."
Maybe, just maybe, incumbents in the U.S. House get reelected at like a 97% success ratio and earmarks don't have much to do with anything one way or another? Nah....couldn't be.
I can't figure out if this is just hard for some dunces to comprehend or they don't want to learn so they can use the issue for demagogue purposes.
It is decided long before the earmarking process how much to spend. Earmarks don't increase spending one penny. If you took them all away, it'd still be the same amount but with Obama deciding where all the money is spent.
L Ron Paul is a RINO
His agenda is Libertarian, a supporter of Chuck Baldwin
another Third Party WingNut
Finally, whoever writes the headlines for NewsMax should be fired. They’re always the worst, most misleading things ever.
They do increase spending, they contribute to the ongoing baseline of the budget. If the money was allocated but not spent on earmarks, the baseline would drop. He is just playing the game every politician does, the only difference is that when Hillary does it, she is bad, when Paul does it, he is a hero.
BTW, as someone who has worked many contracts for the government, I do comprehend it quite well. There is no encouragement for thrift or saving, at that, on many projects, you are penalized if you don’t max out the budget (sometimes even encouraged to go over budget) in order to keep the baseline high..
That’s OK though, I’ve been hearing these excuses from Paul and other politicians for years.. it is funny to see the continued excuses for collectivism evolve..
I just wish folks would quit holding any politician on such a high platform and realize that other than lawyers, politicians are one of the lowest forms of career there are.. they will say anything and do anything for votes.. Paul found how to play his game, just like Hillary, Dodd, McCain, and every other..
A bunh of double talk.
A bunch of double talk.
Maybe I am too cynical of the process of government, but, to me, earmarks reek of being golden opportunities for legislators to ‘sell’ their influence to their well-heeled and connected constituency in exchange for campaign contributions or other even more nefarious forms of ‘compensation’. I, like the majority within the general public, see the use of earmarks as legislators’ exercising their self-appointed means to be “on the take”. The sheer number of these earmarks and the manner in which they are slipped into unrelated legislation demonstrates to me that they receive little or no scrutiny and are therefore never exposed to, let alone pass, a “stink test” for being legitimate uses of funds. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to appreciate Paul’s logic in rationalizing and even condoning earmarks as at least being a means for quasi-transparency. It is all just the game..
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.