They're trashing Dr. Paul re: Earmarks right now on C-Span

[LibertyEagle]

Apparently, there is a story in the paper today showing all the earmarks that Dr. Paul sends through. My understanding though, is that he introduces them, but he votes against them. Isn't that right?

If so, we'd better get on here and tell them.

Republican number 202-737-0001

[Sematary]

Yes, that is correct. As he explained. He feels an obligation to send the proposals through when his constituents ask him too but he won't vote for them.

[Sematary]

What is this number to?

[LibertyEagle]

Well then, they just told a big fat, half truth, then. We'd better set 'em straight.

[LibertyEagle]

What is this number to?

C-SPAN call-in number.

[Sematary]

It's over. Did anyone call?

[ZackM]

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

Just to make sure anyone who calls in has a firm grasp of Ron Paul's stance...

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836

[LibertyEagle]

Nope. At least no one got on.

[LibertyEagle]

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

Just to make sure anyone who calls in has a firm grasp of Ron Paul's stance...

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836

I hate this statement. I agree that it wouldn't end up saving any money in the long run, but IMO, he needs to say that he's not voting for the ones he introduces. When he does not, people can easily misunderstand his position. He could also describe better that this money is money that was stolen from the states and the people to begin with and that the federal government attempts to control states by making them abide by their mandates to get any of their own damn money back. Just my opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

They are accepting calls again. Now, the topic is the debate.