Posted on 03/16/2009 5:53:21 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
ping!
I have to say I agree with Ron Paul here.
Earmarks are bad politics, but they pale in comparison to some of the things Obama is trying to ram through.
right, after all, what’s wrong with someone earmarking $1m to a hospital that turns around and triples his wife’s salary (for a made- up job) (that nobody had before) (and was eliminated when she left it ) (after all a gal’s gotta get earring money somewhere).
Ron Paul Ping!
Countdown to the first “Paul earmarks shrimp! He’s a kook!” post.
If you earmark for your constituents’ benefit in the area of infrastructure, parks or other ways that better their community and oh yeah, they pay taxes then I don’t see that as an issue. Earmarking for campaign contributions is something else.
There's a juicy rationalization if ever there was one.
Yours was it, and well played it was.
A one percent is a good start. It is about 1/10th of the amount that we should cut in real spending power in the pre-Obama budget levels.
This would be akin to saying that we should continue foreign aid since it’s not that big of a percentage. Or NEA funding for “P*ss Christ” wasn’t that much money compared to a B1 bomber. Or, that $500 toilet seats weren’t that bad compared with the cost of Medicaid.
I’m sorry, but these are all poster children for a much deeper problem on Capitol Hill. By using the excuses that Ron Paul uses, he’s decided that the cesspool that is Washington politics is really a jacuzzi.
This will soon become a paleo hater thread.
At least I got in before the Thorazine ad.
Your post makes it clear you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article.
The article, whether you agree with it or not, is informative.
— quote —
A one percent is a good start. It is about 1/10th of the amount that we should cut in real spending power in the pre-Obama budget levels.
This would be akin to saying that we should continue foreign aid since it’s not that big of a percentage. Or NEA funding for “P*ss Christ” wasn’t that much money compared to a B1 bomber. Or, that $500 toilet seats weren’t that bad compared with the cost of Medicaid.
— unquote —
Congrats, I wasn't so lucky.
Funny thing is that the photo looks more like a ticked off Thomas Edison than it does Ron Paul -- that's actually who I thought it was the first time I saw it. LOL!
Now it's just the mindless post of someone who has nothing more interesting to say.
This would be akin to saying that we should continue foreign aid since it’s not that big of a percentage.
Except that Ron Paul did not argue that the number was small and so shouldn't be worried about. The point is that if money is not earmarked it is still spent, but instead by the executive branch and its bureaucracies. That is the point.
I have said on this forum more than once, and I will make it again. The people who are preaching against earmarks are the MSM, Obama and McCain. Since when should you follow that leadership? Obama was proud of his stimulus bill because it had no earmarks, and yet it was filled with pork. The only difference is that an earmark is relatively transparent which is why the MSM is so able to identify Ron Paul's earmarks and complain about them. The stimulus bill's spending was instead buried in bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and therefore is invisible. That is what Obama, and apparently all those posting here that agree with him, would prefer.
I'm very sympathetic to Congressman Paul and I generally admire his work. But I think he is being somewhat disingenuous here.
Yes, the total level of spending may be determined before earmarks are allocated. But I imagine that Congressional leaders factor in earmarks when they decide to set the total spending levels. By padding the total level they can make room for additional earmarks for several Congressmen, which means a few extra votes for the bill (or some other debt to be called at a later time).
Suppose Congress is determining the total level of spending for unconstitutional project "X". They determine (by whatever means) that $100 million will be enough to accomplish their objectives. But they know the vote will be close. They also know they can get the extra 10 votes needed if they set total spending at $110 million, so that 10 reluctant Congressman can earmark $1 million for their districts.
Technically, the earmarks aren't increasing the already-established total spending amount. But without the Congressional earmark system, you may nevertheless have had a lower spending level. Or maybe you wouldn't have the unconstitutional program at all, since you couldn't buy votes for it in the first place.
I don't think Paul's use of earmarks makes him totally worthless as a politician. It's not that big of a flaw compared to the lapses of many other Republicans (who strangely are admired by many of Congressman Paul's sharpest critics). Still, as someone who presents himself as a steadfast and consistent limited government advocate, he should be above even this minor flaw.
[sigh]
ping
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.