IMHO...
A) I actually get his argument, it’s not totally crazy. He’s trying to say that the system is not perfect, this money is going out anyway and if his State is in dire need of having a road fixed, he’ll try to get something back.
B) It would take a huge amount of strength of principle to go up against the whole political machine in one’s home State to have $0 in earmarks.
C) Nevertheless, his arguement $0 is the better stand. As close to $0 as possible should be sought, i.e., only if a Federal highway needs repair and the Feds are NOT doing the repair, etc. This stand would mean probably not too many terms in Congress; the local people have to have a steady stream of candidates of their own to keep going up against “professional politician” candidates. Any way a Congressman can cut Federal spending they should, because it is getting to be financial “emergency” time. The same old spending is really creating serious problems. And the only way to get something done is to start. If you never start, you never get it done.
He is a statist.
Just caught a few minutes of Paul in the debate. Nasty little prick isn’t he!
Just politics.
I agree with his reasoning. The Feds steal the money and as a TX congressman he tries to get it back.
When he was my representative, he would stick his earmarks onto bills that he would vote against. He would pay for other people’s votes by voting with the Democrats on some issues, so his earmarks would pass, despite his votes against them.
We figured he was a crank, but he also would never speak against racists (and there are some in south Texas) or truthers.
Thanks for posting
His excuses to why he puts them in are pure bunk (and frankly, he sabotages the ‘purity’ of his own argument by voting against them.)
First, his statement he is just ‘bringing tax money back to the people’ is a laugh considering the deficits we are running. He isn’t bringing the money back to his district, he is helping burden his district (and every other tax payer) with more long term debt. His argument is like saying I am giving you money by buying you goodies on your own credit card.
Second, it is incorrect to say that earmarks do not contribute to the debt, that it would be spent anyway. While it may have already been accounted for in the current budget (because they were put in.. big circle there) DC operates on a system called base-line budgeting. Every year’s budget starts with the following year’s baseline. This means if you don’t spend everything you were budgeted, your baseline drops and so does spending. Paul is helping continue the practice of maximum base-lining where you meet or exceed your budget this year to guarantee the following year’s budget. There is no reward for fiscal responsibility in this pattern, instead, reward goes to those who waste.
Third, it is false to say that if it isn’t spent through earmarks, the President can spend it any way he wants. This is patently false. With two exceptions, the President can’t touch money in the budget. The two exceptions are a specific budget called the Presidential discretionary fund and a part of the defense budget that is tagged for operations that are directly under the control of the Commander in Chief (military operations versus annual budget). He falsely uses the latter of these as the example making people think it applies to all budgets.
Fourth, the claim that earmarks are ‘constitutional’ and if he had his way all budget items would be earmarked. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only is there no mention of any sort of spending like we see with earmarks in the Constitution, they fly in the face of our very system. They are spending without legislation. They are extremely deceptive spending where these riders are added to completely unrelated bills and often not even in the bill text that is voted on. This way, a museum may be funded within a transportation bill- but funding for the museum is never voted on. It is just a rider to spend the money for that added at the end.
Of course, if Paul really believed in the intellectual purity of his arguments, he wouldn’t be voting against it. Instead, he is like a thief who wears gloves so his finger prints won’t be on the robbery.