What that story doesn't mention is that these earmarks, like all of RP's earmarks, never get funded. It's because he won't engage in the porking vote-trading required to get pork of your own.
- iiiyraeg Says:
August 7th, 2007 at 5:26 amRon Paul’s reasoning, which took me a while to figure out, is this: the money claimed by earmarks WILL be spent; it’s not a question of how much earmarking there will be, but who will get it. The only way to kill the earmarks is to kill the entire bill, which Ron Paul consistently votes to do, year after year. Since he cannot win the overall budget battle, he does his best to ensure that a fair share of the earmarked money at least returns to the taxpayers he represents, and not exclusively to someone else’s constituents. Once in a while his earmarks stick and his constituents get a bit of the federal loot returned to them in public projects (not as good as tax refunds, but better than nothing).
Yeah, it’s too clever by half (he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon), but it is consistent with his philosophy.
- 0zzy Says:
August 7th, 2007 at 5:49 amRead this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=earmark#9
Basically:
The government is going to spend this money one way or another. By NOT earmarking the funds, you just give the bureaucracy $XX million dollars and say “have at it”.By earmarking it, you put where the money should be, back to the people, rather than trusting the bureaucracy.
However, when the earmarks go on for voting, he VOTES AGAINST HIS OWN EARMARKS.
So, please, do your research. The old media is known for telling half truths.
Well, I’m going to bed now. It was fun being the talk of the day. Have a good night, everybody.
~Karsten Nicholson
Those are some CHOICE quotes alright! Lightweight cannot even stand up for his own amendments...just like a DUmocrat!