Posted on 03/11/2009 6:56:34 PM PDT by pissant
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.
That's not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That's what Fox News is reporting.
In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Paul not only defended his own earmarks, he argued that every penny in the federal budget should be earmarked, to improve transparency.
Paul, a fiscal watchdog who said he voted against the bill because he believes federal spending is out of control, acknowledged that $73 million in the bill passed by his colleagues "might be" going to his district on Texas' Gulf Coast for things like the intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake. But he was fine with that, noting that he always votes for tax credits, not matter how "silly," to return money to the constituents who sent their tax dollars to Washington.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to — it's like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. ...
I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
I like Ron Paul, but that’s a hyper technicality.
pingzers
“Mr. Constitution”
Ron Paul is a phony baloney tin-foiling wearing freak.
Looks like Rabscuttle's boy not only is a moron on foreign policy but a hypocrite on spending as well.
And it must be "constitutional", right?
I’m in the middle of the road on the earmarks thing.
Earmarks are a symptom of a greater problem. Sometimes things that need getting done can’t get the money because the opposition doesn’t want to hear about it. On the other hand, we shouldn’t have to pay to study the homosexual mating habits of the east texas dung beetle.
Too much raiding and skimming going on in DC across the board.
I call him Rhu Paul. >;0)
Why shouldn’t anyone ask for the money the federal government takes in taxes back? Whose money is it? The federal government’s or the citizens?
You people pretend that once the money is looted from the taxpayer’s pocket, they’d better never ask for it to be returned. Is that right? that means you think that all money belongs to the federal government, or in the case of modern history, the federal reserve, to be spent propping up the failed globalist policies of the last 30 years. You think that Obama needs taxpayer money to ‘save the world’ economic system which is tantamount to treason against the Constitution.
All congressmen should ask for the district money back. Let citizens decide where it’s spent, not the federal reserve, the G20, the numerous ‘councils’ and ‘czars’ the white house has created.
Interesting how some are just getting a clue that L Ron Paul’s middle name is Oink and a RINO delux.
I wish hr would make the final move over to his Third Party loons.
His type, along with the “Pures” and Far Left are
doing their best to divide the Republicans.
They are Obama’s best friend.
do I really need a /sarc?
He’s a nutty little elf as well as a hypocrite. He knows a particular bill will pass and votes against it, symbolically, but is always there to wallow in the booty.
Oh my gosh, I understand now, it is so simple.. the federal government is the redistributer in chief.. oh wow.. collectivism is good.. I never saw it that way.. take from the taxpayers and give it to pet projects.. thanks to you and Dr. Paul, I finally see the perfection in collectivism....
/sarc
Thus, the hypocrite tag...
So you're a RINO too?
Sheesh...
Let the lunacy begin again...
Ron Paul is the libertarian evil clone of Dennis Kucinich.
Both are crazy as Charles Manson without the weapons.
This federal earmarking of local pet projects is such total crap.
The ONLY things the central government should be doing are major things of NATIONAL significance, that have greater than local impact, and that cannot be done at the state level. Things like the national defense and major items of national infrastructure like the interstate highway system.
If the people of Texas don’t care enough about some local waterfront development project to pay for it themselves, why the holy hell should I pay for it out of my paycheck from Massachusetts?
Likewise, I think it’s preposterous for people in Texas to pay for the Boston Big Dig mess.
Perhaps if we weren’t filtering all our money through a massive central bureaucracy only have a small percentage returned to us, we could actually afford to pay for the local work we want directly, and far more efficiently.
This federal government is totally out of control. Its budget needs to be slashed by 75% across the board, and taxes reduced accordingly.
Look out! The Paulbots will be here soon to defend the mad elf!
He is such a flake. His district got HAMMERED by hurricane Ike and he was turning down aid, saying it was wrong, but now this. That man should retire, and the liberaltarians should find a better standard bearer.
He reminds me of Pat Paulson.
“And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it.”
it’s not our money because you tell me how it should be spent.
He gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “robbing Peter to pay Paul”..
Ron Paul Ping
and worse, the clone of L Ron Paul is 9/11 Truther Chuck Baldwin
BUT, why are FReepers freaking out on this? Maybe he is a lying fraud I don't know, but what he says here makes perfect sense.
On a side note (serious questions), I always thought earmarks were pork attachments to unrelated bills. How are these things in the spending bill considered earmarks? Aren't they just spending? What part of the spending bill is not an earmark?
Clearly you are in favor of Obama’s plan to send the money overseas.
A representative ‘represents’ citizens. The places Obama’s sending our tax dollars get it without representation or even our permission. The federal reserve says its a ‘secret’.
You globalists are destroying this country and gutting the domestic economy.
You are the redistributionists, and apparently you’re a disinformationist too.
You’re a globalist, then.
What do you have against taxpayers keeping some of their money?
Cute collectivist double speak you have there.
Ron Paul makes sense some of the time. This is not one of those times.
That isn’t keeping it, that is big brother redistributing it to whom he deems worthy.
So the federal government, Nancy Pelosi and Obama should decide where a taxpayer’s money should be spent even if they want to send it to foreign corporations and foreign governments to prop up the fake ‘global economy’? LOL your colors are showing LOL
You’re projecting, LOL
No, none of them should. This redistribution game just keeps the baseline growing and Paula is just as guilty as Pelosi.
If you live in a congressional district, and money from taxes is taken from your district, do you expect that it should NEVER be spent in your district? Is it gone? Kaput? Like it never existed?
Whatever.
That slogan will knock 'em dead in 2010 when the Repubs accuse the Dims of fiscal irresponsibility...
“What do you have against taxpayers keeping some of their money?”
He gets to pick the taxpayers he likes
This is something I’ve been confused about. This used to be one of the things that bothered me about Paul, but I’m not totally sure how this earmark process works. The situation I associate with pork is when a congressman agrees to support a bill if spending for their district is added to the bill.
From what is sounds like he’s saying, an “earmark” is just some part of the bill that has an allotted amount of money (whether that’s ‘pork’ or spending on government salaries), so that way everyone can see where that money is going. Without the earmark,the spending would not be transparent.
The other thing it sounds like he’s saying is that there is a certain amount allocated for the bill and that the money will be spent whether or not he earmarks it to his district. If not him, for instance, the money would still be spent, perhaps in another district, or at the discretion of the executive branch, with less transparency.
My original interpretation can’t really be applicable because Paul never votes for these bills. If he never votes for them even when these earmarks go to his district, then why give him the earmarks at all, unless the money is already appropriated to the bill? Even then though I’m still not sure how it is decided who gets the how much for their districts. I’m confused about the whole issue now.
I don’t believe spending like this is constitutional, but if the money is already appropriated then I can’t blame him for trying to get a piece for his district.
Of course, he’s right to try to return hatever tax money to his constituents that he can if he can’t cut their taxes in the first place. At least he votes against the bills. If only the senate Republicans did the same.
People who are critical of Paul for earmarking money for his own district while voting against the bill are the same people who chastise Republicans for not surrendering under term limits when they get the majority.
“...only have a small percentage returned to us...”
I saw Tim Pawlenty on one of the talk shows discussing whether he would take the federal stimulus funds. He said he would take the funds, because his state only gets back 73 cents of every dollar they send to Washington.
Limit stimulus funds to the amount that each state has sent to Washington. Or better yet, don’t take the money from the states to begin with.
Sooper! Always wondered what I am, now I know.
Please help me understand earmarks.
I’m being serious.
Is it like this...?
A bill is about to be voted on - say 100 mil. for education - the amount to be voted on is set at 100 mil. - but the terms of spending are very broad - reps put in “earmarks” for stuff they want - might be stupid and wasteful, might not be stupid and wasteful - does the 100 mil. amount grow with each proposed earmark - or is it just a way of tagging a portion of the bill for something specific - while the rest just gets spent in whatever way the executive branch chooses?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear things up for me.
He submits every single request for an earmark that his office receives, no matter how silly.
I need to request my money before he can give it back to me?
It’s Paul’s fault the Republican party has been commandeered by neo-cons?
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.