ALERT!!! Can Someone Help?!?!?!?

[Kregener]

Saw this posted on another Forum I frequent:

Which Congressman Wants $8 million to "market" wild American shrimp? (http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/which_congressman_wants_8_million_to_market_wild_a merican_shrimp#comment_form)

Yeah, and I saw in another "subscribers only area" at The War Street Journal where Bush, Guiliani and Thompson had an orgy on the Whitehouse lawn with Hillary Clinton, Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Boxer.

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe Dr. Paul has submitted almost HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in "pork", all the while calling for an end to same and a return to the Constitutional purpose of government.

I have sent this to the Ron Paul Campaign.

I will wait for an answer before passing judgment.

[Bradley in DC]

The shrimpers are an important part of the Congressional district and very supportive of Dr. Paul. Earmarks are allocating money to be spent and do not change the funding totals. There are NO ALLEGATIONS that any of Dr. Paul's earmarks are tied to corruption regarding Dr. Paul (that would be laughable)--unlike some other Congressment. I can guarantee Dr. Paul votes against final passage of the spending bills which is the better indication of what Dr. Paul actually wants.

[Kuldebar]

Paul says yes on local earmarks (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html)

Congress' 'Dr. No' on spending looks out for his own Texas district

08:14 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – He's known as "Dr. No" for all his votes against government spending, but Texas Rep. Ron Paul isn't saying no to spending in his district.

Mr. Paul, a Republican presidential candidate and physician, has requested earmarks for about 50 items, largely for water projects, according to request letters released by his office.

In written requests he submitted to the House Appropriations Committee, the Lake Jackson Republican asked for $8.6 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel and $10 million for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge. He also asked for money for a nursing program, expansion of a cancer center at Brazosport Hospital, a seafood testing program, a Children's Identification and Location Database and $8 million for Wild American Shrimp Marketing requested by the Texas Shrimp Association.

Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district," Mr. Lizardo said.

However, Mr. Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor. So far this year he has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans and state-foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.

Many lawmakers feel they are better off requesting funding for specific projects in their districts rather than waiting for a bureaucratic agency to decide which project is funded. Mr. Paul agrees, Mr. Lizardo said.


==========================================

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html)


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 necessarily 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.

[remaxjon]

attack is the last thing they do before you win!

[spacebetween]

Paul says yes on local earmarks (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html)

Congress' 'Dr. No' on spending looks out for his own Texas district

08:14 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 27, 2007

... and $10 million for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge.

Interesting, anyway, in light of certain events. :rolleyes:

[0zzy]

Interesting. People not gonna be interested in him anymore because of this? That'd be sad.

[Nathan Hale]

Here's the lowdown:

Dr. Paul is committed to the people in his district. Whenever anybody in his district wants anything, he gets it done. As such, when people in his district request that their earmarks be submitted to bills, he does it. HOWEVER, when it comes time to vote on the bill HE VOTES AGAINST IT, even after submitted the earmark. This dichotomy is important, because it preserves Dr. Paul's anti-spending integrity. Make sure to mention this important point whenever somebody tries to question Dr. Paul's integrity by mentioning the above issue.

[JPFromTally]

PULEEZE! They outed Bill Clinton for boinking Jennifer Flowers before he won. This is probably the best dirt they've got out of a squeaky clean Paul.

[Dustancostine]

This is where the story is from:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

This is the explanation in the article:



he Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

Ok lets learn to read critically:

Line 1


Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending,

Even if Paul would have not requested earmarks the money would have been spent anyways. The money for earmarks is money that has already been decided to be spent in the first place.

Line 2

(Reducing Earmarks) it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked

Even if earmarks were reduced, that does not mean that the same money will not be spent on those same projects. Just the process of deciding how the money will be spent is different. Instead of congress deciding, bureaucracy would decide.

Line 3

What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

People who are for earmark reform are not for less spending, but less congressional control over spending. They want the bureaucracies to decide how the money is divided up, because its easier to buy these people off.

Conclusion:

Ron Paul is not only taking the ethical position by making sure money that his district sent to Washington is being brought back, but also the Constitutional position. The Constitution states that congress shall hold the purse strings and earmarks are Congress's way of specifically appropriating funds. Ron Paul is against the money being spent in the first place, but feels that its Congress's job to make sure the money is spent wisely if it is already to be spent because the bureaucracies will not.

Here is an example:

Say $100 million is going to be appropriated to the department of Agriculture. RP doesn't feel that it is Constitutional so he votes against it. It passes anyways because the other Congressmen want to spend. Now RP has a decision to make, either have Congress earmark the funds to they are spent specifically or hand over the $100 with no direction and let the Dept of Ag. spend as they please. We can clearly see what happens when these Departments get to spend as they please, it is a disaster so RP choose to earmark the funds.



Here are two analogies:

Analogy #1

Ron Paul is against the US going to war unconstitutionally. So RP puts a bill before Congress to Declare War (Specifically stating how the war should be fought) instead of giving the President a general authorization of force. The Declaration of War is the same as Earmarking Funds, it specifically outlines what congress is authorizing.

Analogy #2

A boy ask his father for some money to go to the mall. The father has two choices:
(a) give the kid a $20 and tell the kid to spend it as he pleases, or (b) give the kid a $20 and tell him to spend $5 on food and $15 on a shirt. The second example is the father earmarking the funds. We can all imagine what the kid will spend the money on if the father doesn't "earmark" his funds.

Hope this Helps.

Dustan

[JPFromTally]

Good job Dustan!

[kylejack]

I've always been displeased with this. And I always will be.

[bygone]

Telling half the story is so Old Media.

[0zzy]

Good job Dustan! Informed me!

[tmg19103]

The more press the better. The public is not going to care about this, except to perhaps do some research on Ron Paul and find out how great his policies are overall.

[Kregener]

Thanks a TON Dustan!!!

[ThePieSwindler]

I've always been displeased with this. And I always will be.

kylejack you have dissented on this issue every time it is brought up. I ask you, do you think it makes more sense to do what Ron does, or would it be better for him to screw his district over by not passing on earmarks to bills, and lettng that money that will already be spent either go to another district, or be used by bureaucrats for unnecessary infrastructure/development? Its sort of like social security and welfare - Ron is fundamentally against the whole system, but if it has to exist, lets at least do it the best and most efficient way possible. Would you criticize Ron Paul for cutting spending by stopping the war, and then allocating some of that money toward paying off entitlements? Ron paul is principally opposed to the entitlement system, but he works with in it for the best as to not screw people over. This is EXACTLY what he does with the earmark issue. Do you consider it a blemish, or an unprincipled, contradictory act, that he would pay for our entitlements even though the whole system is against his fundamental principles?


I realize you will never be convinced on this issue, and thats fine, but at least think about it a bit.

[jonahtrainer]

kylejack you have dissented on this issue every time it is brought up.

Kylejack needs to be turned into stone like all the other trolls. Look at his other posts. Blah blah blah rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. Perhaps sometime he will say something substantial?

The earmarks are what every worthwhile Congressman would do. I wish my Congressman would earmark the entire bill's spending to our district and then vote against it!

Follow the vote just like one should follow the money.