Posted on 11/12/2010 3:52:41 PM PST by Fred
In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.
His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?
Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in .........
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Calling all Paulanistas...time for ole man Paul and Paul the younger to do the right thing...no more earmarks..No more BS on the constitution....
Rand’s old man is a masterful weasel on earmarks - he inserts them and then votes against the final bill when it doesn’t matter. In a way, Rand is at least more honest than his old man regarding earmarks. He still sucks, but sucks less.
earmarks are not the problem and are only a distraction issue.
Rush said today that earmarks are MSM bait and we have much bigger fish to fry.
The problem is that we want simple answers, and earmarks are a complicated issue.
When Rand Paul and Jim Inhofe question a total ban on earmarks, I have to listen to their arguments.
I would wish for sincere and determined dialogue on the subject, but that’s probably asking too much.
Real simple choice... not complicated....easy to do...But alas, when a politician comes from a state that cannot produce any revenue guess they have to go begging to the feds for their crumbs. Oh well....Another hypocrite another day..as if anything is going to change in DC...
Can not wait for Ron’s first hearing.
Looks like everybody has their PORK including TPers, Paulanistas and freepers...
The only question the LSM will be asking Paul will be on earmarks...bet on it...
Ear marks = Bribery and Corruption
And THAT is why the American public does not like it. We don’t care if it’s only 1% of the total budget. Someone needs to tell Rush that.
We the tax payers play by the rules, and we want honest politicians. Not a bunch of scumbags that are going to bribed and compromise their beliefs for Ear Marks. THUS, why ear marks is such a big deal.
Only elitist do not understand this. It’s very simple.
Earmarks: It’s not about the money, it’s about now “BUSINESS” gets done in DC. Attaching earmarks to bills is vote buying. So, our “Elected Elites” don’t have to know what is in the Bill, Nancy, they just vote because there is money in for them. To me, that’s called bribery and it should be illegal.
Everyone knows Charles K has blessed earmarks since “they don’t save any money since the money is already appropriated.” What nonsense is this? If leadership can pass out bribes to pass an appropriation bill should that be ok if the bribes come out of the appropriation?
Does anyone else think this is just nutz?
I agree. One piece of earmark reform I would like is to remove them from certain bills. For instance, defense bills shouldnt include earmarks, for this scenario:
Defense bill needs 1 dem Sen from a conservative state. He agrees to the bill, as long as he can attach a study on the effects of some farm initiative that will cost a few million dollars. Everyone agrees and the defense bill gets passed. Later, some vulnerable Rep Sen who voted for the defense bill gets called out by the Tea Party for supporting sending money to farm initiatives in other states.
I say, lets have an earmark or pork barrel bill every few months and vote on it up or down.
El wrongo. It's not about the money. Earmarks typify and represent what's wrong with the legislative process. It's the concept... not the amount.
Furthermore, $8 billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money. Look at all the small-er government agencies and departments in existence. Whack 'em all and I bet you'd be amazed at the total waste in government. If it were up to me, I'd take away legislators' cars, personal spending accounts, and even make them furnish their own offices.
Anything less than this demonstrates that we're not serious about cutting waste of the taxpayers' money.
Over the last few years I’ve come to be more and more convexed that the people who worry about earmarks are wasting their and our time. Even including the legitimate earmarks the ones that simply don’t give the president discretion where to spend our money, your talking chump change that is extremely expesnive to get rid of.
It’s not worth it! If you really want to get the budget under control you need to look at meaningful items like the entitlements.
“Half a million dollars went to the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Wash. And another $1 million for high-tech gear that looks for aliens — not illegal aliens, but extraterrestrials! A congressman slipped that into this year’s defense bill, but Congress refused to say who it was.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2969636&page=1
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.