PDA

View Full Version : Help Needed - Ron Paul and Earmarks




WASH DC
09-08-2007, 08:40 PM
I have a wealthy conservative friend who should be a natural Ron Paul supporter.
But he has hung because he has read that RP has supported earmarks for his congressional district.

I know this has been explained somehwere but I don't have it.

Crazy as it seems this is the only thing standing between him and serious RP support.

Please help.

CoreyBowen999
09-08-2007, 08:42 PM
guess im wrong.

nullvalu
09-08-2007, 08:45 PM
EDIT: ah, actually I guess you were kinda right ;)

zahirakids
09-08-2007, 08:45 PM
I have a wealthy conservative friend who should be a natural Ron Paul supporter.
But he has hung because he has read that RP has supported earmarks for his congressional district.

I know this has been explained somehwere but I don't have it.

Crazy as it seems this is the only thing standing between him and serious RP support.

Please help.

Ron Paul always votes against the bills, but if they do pass he tries to get something for his district. Otherwise he would never be re-elected.

SeanEdwards
09-08-2007, 08:45 PM
Paul adds the earmarks requested by voters in his district to the spending bills, but then when those bills come up for a vote he votes no.

His argument is that if the bills are going to be passed anyway, then he might as well get his district's share of the pork.

nullvalu
09-08-2007, 08:45 PM
If pork gets attached to his bills, he'll vote against them.

im_a_pepper
09-08-2007, 08:46 PM
Its true he pushed through almost every single earmark that his district asked for. He felt he should do it for pure politics and for his districts sake, but he then turned around and voted against those exact same earmarks he pushed through in effect killing them. This shows how incorrectly set up the process is, and why the earmark issue is of no consequence to Ron Paul's candidacy.

So in a nutshell he pushes them through for voting in representation of his District, makes a case for it and then votes against the same earmarks. I love it.

nullvalu
09-08-2007, 08:46 PM
Damn I can't find it now but there was a rating website for how much pork each member of congress has.. Does anyone have that link? I think he rated fairly well on there.

specsaregood
09-08-2007, 08:47 PM
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm
"Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One"

June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

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.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

specsaregood
09-08-2007, 08:49 PM
Some other good comments from
here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118740056245201632.html

The Strategic Nature of Ron Paul's Earmarks
August 18, 2007; Page A5
Ron Paul has indeed been responsible for several legislative earmarks intended to fund government activity inconsistent with his libertarian philosophy. At face value, his actions seem hypocritical; however, there is an important mitigating factor which your editorial ("Ron Paul's Earmarks," Aug. 6) failed to mention: Mr. Paul proceeds to vote against the passage of the earmarked bills.

In other words, Mr. Paul opposes the type of legislation that allows for the inclusion of these earmarks, yet acknowledges that in the face of a federal government sadly keen on spending, his district deserves the same treatment as others. Considering that extra earmarks do not increase federal spending, he owes this to his constituents.

Evan Pittman
Atlanta

It is worth noting that if Mr. Paul were not so outnumbered in Congress, his constituents would not have to ask for 94 cents back from each federal tax dollar. They send Mr. Paul to Washington precisely because he believes that that money is theirs, and its redistribution according to federal whim is an economic injustice.

Kate Rick
Wentworth, N.H.

WASH DC
09-08-2007, 08:49 PM
Where any of RP's earmarks ever actually funded? Does anyone know? I have read that John Boehner has never done an earmark.

foofighter20x
09-08-2007, 08:49 PM
Put it in context. Also, read this: http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836

1) Federal taxes are too high and drain money out of local economies--money that would be used for these very things had those dollars not been sent to Washington.
2) If all earmarks were removed, federal spending wouldn't drop by a single penny. By the time the appropriations process gets to earmarks, Congress as a whole has already decided what the amount of spending will be. Earmarks give the elected representatives a tool to get some of that spending into their district.
3) It's Dr Paul's job to get this constituents back their taxdollars, even if he must use earmarks to do it.
4) Dr Paul lets the earmarks he submits speak for themselves and never uses political influence to get them through committee nor does he attach them to popular bills which are known beforehand will pass.
5) While he does submit the earmarks, he always votes against them when the question of the spending is addressed on the floor for a final vote.

dmitchell
09-08-2007, 08:50 PM
It is his job to forward requests to the appropriate committees. He votes against the spending.

Spirit of '76
09-08-2007, 08:51 PM
Here's the deal:

The taxpayer money for these "earmarks" has already been set aside. It's going to spent no matter what.

Congressman Paul still votes against the bills, but he knows they will pass anyway, and that the money will be spent anyway.

He is simply making sure that his constituents get some of their tax money back instead of letting some other congresscritter waste it or some faceless, nameless bureaucrat decide how it should be used.

Besides, they all request earmarks. The only reason this is even an issue for Ron Paul is that he is one of only a handful of people who had the honesty to reveal their earmark requests. The rest of 'em don't want you to know what they're requesting money for.

It's sick, but in this case the dishonest are using Dr. Paul's honesty against him.

specsaregood
09-08-2007, 08:54 PM
Ron Paul addresses the earmark issue here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims
4:10 into the video from his kudlow and company interview.

born2drv
09-08-2007, 08:54 PM
Kudlow asked RP himself in an interview.... take a look:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims

about 4mins into the clip he addresses this.

ladyliberty
09-08-2007, 08:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking

someone did a good job of explaing exactly what earmarkings are at wikipedia.

born2drv
09-08-2007, 08:55 PM
damn, beat me to it ;)

WASH DC
09-08-2007, 08:55 PM
Great replies. Thanks for the help!

nullvalu
09-08-2007, 08:56 PM
Great replies. Thanks for the help!

Armed with info, now go get that supporter! :cool:

WASH DC
09-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Will do!

klamath
09-08-2007, 09:01 PM
Where any of RP's earmarks ever actually funded? Does anyone know? I have read that John Boehner has never done an earmark.

Maybe he didn't vote for earmarks but if he voted for the whole budget he voted for every earmark and every bit of the pork in the budget, where Paul did not.

nullvalu
09-08-2007, 09:03 PM
Also --- I think I read Paul is one of the only people who has released their exact figures..

JosephTheLibertarian
09-08-2007, 09:53 PM
I have a wealthy conservative friend who should be a natural Ron Paul supporter.
But he has hung because he has read that RP has supported earmarks for his congressional district.

I know this has been explained somehwere but I don't have it.

Crazy as it seems this is the only thing standing between him and serious RP support.

Please help.

He's rich and he's complaining about earmarks? lol

The Only Woj
09-08-2007, 09:58 PM
1) the budgets are already made, so that money is going to go somewhere either way
2) he doesn't like earmarks, but what he does is appropriate money that should have stayed in the states to begin with
3) he typically votes against the bills anyway

basically, Ron appropriates the money back into his state/district because if not, someone else will take that money for their district.

tnvoter
09-08-2007, 10:48 PM
The truth:

Paul feels the people of his district is unfairly taxed by the federal government on their income, and is simply returning the money to his district.

He also happens to have been the first person out of ALL of the candidates for president to release their earmarks.

bbachtung
09-08-2007, 11:17 PM
I don't think that Ron Paul has ever actually voted in favor of a budget.

He proudly (rightfully so) proclaims that he has never voted for an unbalanced budget. No budget has been balanced since God knows when (even when Clinton and the Republicans phonied-up a "balanced" budget in the late 90's it was only by stealing overflow revenue from Social Security taxes).