Unlike his father, Rand Paul says no earmarks for his state

[qh4dotcom]

Ron Paul brings money to his district for earmarks, Rand Paul says there's no money for earmarks

YouTube - Rand Paul at the Garrard County Courthouse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3hMcZF_TFg)

6:20 in that video

[tangent4ronpaul]

Nice pledge, but the reality is that the money will just get spent somewhere else and some of the tax $ paid to the US Gvmt won't be coming back to the local communities.

-t

[Galileo Galilei]

We'll see how it works out. If your state pays taxes, but gets no earmarks, then:

* it is not fair to your state.

* people who procure earmarks are more likely to get elected.

[hueylong]

This should be in the Rand Paul 2010 forum.

[akforme]

I don't agree wtih this at all.

[nelsonwinters]

As much as I agree with his Dad's position on earmarks, this is the type of thing he needs to say to appear to be non-hypocritical to the Fox News tea party people. I think people forget how difficult it is to win as a non-incumbent or non-establishment candidate. If I remember correctly, Ron Paul got a bit lucky when he first got elected into congress and he was just trying to win over a congressional district. Rand's trying to win over a whole state.

[erowe1]

That's too bad. Earmarks are a great way to take money away from seriously bad things like war and education and reroute it to merely wasteful spending.

[Dionysus]

How can you earmark money when there's a debt and a deficit? What is an earmark, then? More slavery to the bankers.

[RideTheDirt]

Ron, your son is confused....

No earmarks means you are robbed and you get no compensation at all. I would rather not be robbed, but that's another battle.

[Dionysus]

Are earmarks as relevant in the Senate compared to the House?

[Elwar]

Ron Paul always votes against earmark spending.

But he puts the earmark requests in for his district anyway.

[ctiger2]

Ron Paul explains earmarks as getting tax dollars collected by the Federal Gov.t back into community that paid them.

[erowe1]

How can you earmark money when there's a debt and a deficit? What is an earmark, then? More slavery to the bankers.

An earmark is when Congress partitions off portions of the spending allocated in a bill to be spent in some specific way, instead of being spent however the executive branch thinks is the best way to fulfill the requirements of the law. It doesn't increase the amount spent. Often earmarks are considered wasteful spending, which is a good thing, since most of the big things government does ares bad, the more of its resources that could be rerouted to these piddly things, the better.

[ctiger2]

Ron Paul always votes against earmark spending.

But he puts the earmark requests in for his district anyway.

I think that's because he would only vote Yes on a balanced budget. The proposed budgets are always in deficit.

[Dionysus]

An earmark is when Congress partitions off portions of the spending allocated in a bill to be spent in some specific way, instead of being spent however the executive branch thinks is the best way to fulfill the requirements of the law. It doesn't increase the amount spent. Often earmarks are considered wasteful spending, which is a good thing, since most of the big things government does ares bad, the more of its resources that could be rerouted to these piddly things, the better.

I see. Thanks

[erowe1]

I think that's because he would only vote Yes on a balanced budget. The proposed budgets are always in deficit.

That, and he would also only vote yes on something that does not go beyond the congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution. the earmarks pretty much are never constitutional. He doesn't vote for them, he just makes sure they're in there for if the bill passes on account of all the other legislators who don't give a rip about the Constitution, so that they don't rip off his district.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ron Paul's position on earmarks is the right one but it's hard to explain it without sounding hypocritical. Rand Paul is being wise here, that's politics. Why give your opposition a stick to beat you with.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul's position on earmarks is the right one but it's hard to explain it without sounding hypocritical. Rand Paul is being wise here, that's politics. Why give your opposition a stick to beat you with.

It's not so much not giving them a stick, since his opposition hasn't taken an anti-earmark pledge, so much as it is Rand making this into his own stick to beat them with. Hope it works. A lot of these blue collar socially conservative, but fiscally not so much, states love them some earmarks. You ought to see the pride West Virginians have in the pork KKK Byrd brings them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul always votes against earmark spending.

But he puts the earmark requests in for his district anyway.

Exactly. That "no" vote is an important part. I also tend to agree with Rand. The game of everyone trying to get as much money from the government has to stop. These negotiations where they say "I'll give you money, you give me money, and we'll all win" is nonsense. We all lose.

[Baptist]

I see. Thanks

Because the money is going to be spent anyways, Ron earmarks stuff for his district so that his constituents get some of their tax money back from the feds. But like somebody said earlier, even though he earmarks stuff for his district he votes against the bill because the budget is not balanced. So even though he's voting no, his constituents are still getting hooked up because the rest of the congress does not care about balanced budgets and passes it anyways.

[TastyWheat]

I think Ron has the right idea when it comes to earmarks, but most people don't understand the earmark process so it's easier to oppose them altogether.

[dannno]

How can you earmark money when there's a debt and a deficit? What is an earmark, then? More slavery to the bankers.

You obviously don't know how earmarks work. They don't create a bigger budget, they allocate funds away from the Executive Branch and back into local communities.

Ron Paul needs to sit down with his son and explain this concept to him so he can go out and explain it to people.

It's a really easy concept to understand.


Edit:


I see. Thanks


I guess it was already explained.


I still don't understand why Rand doesn't want to bring back some of the loot that the Feds take from his district.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

This is always one of the issues I've disliked about Ron Paul. Too many conservatives beat him over the head with the earmark issue in 2007 and asked "where in the Constitution does it say the role of the federal government to fund the wild American shrimp industry in Texas?"

This appeals to conservatives and could land Rand Paul the endorsement of the influential Club for Growth.

[Ian A.]

the influential Club for Growth.

I get a lot of junk mail from them. :p


http://www.ijdf.net/penis-enlargement-pills.jpg

[tremendoustie]

I know there's a legit debate on this, but personally I am glad he took this stand.

[qh4dotcom]

This is always one of the issues I've disliked about Ron Paul. Too many conservatives beat him over the head with the earmark issue in 2007 and asked "where in the Constitution does it say the role of the federal government to fund the wild American shrimp industry in Texas?"

This appeals to conservatives and could land Rand Paul the endorsement of the influential Club for Growth.

My problem with the earmarks is that I see a lot of money being wasted within his district and a few folks getting that money while most folks don't see a penny. It's a transfer of wealth from folks in his district who paid taxes and don't get any earmark money to those who do.

If everyone in his district benefited equally from the earmarks I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[micahnelson]

This appeals to conservatives and could land Rand Paul the endorsement of the influential Club for Growth.

The war on Earmarks is a war against Congress. Congress is the best shot we have at getting our views heard and implemented.

Erase every earmark and the budget decreases 0.0%. It just puts more money into the hands of bureaucrats who can't spend properly. I would prefer every single dollar be earmarked, so at least we would know how it was spent.

[TCE]

In a Republican Primary, being against "wasteful earmark spending" looks good. As RonPaulFaninGA said, The Club for Growth now has another reason to support him. It is easier to sound good politically than explain yet another thing to the people of Kentucky that is new to them.

EDIT: Distancing himself from Dr. Paul in a Kentucky primary is also a plus.

[vrichins]

YouTube - Ron Paul vs Rand Paul on Earmarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViDSNwVtYRA)

[dannno]

My problem with the earmarks is that I see a lot of money being wasted within his district and a few folks getting that money while most folks don't see a penny. It's a transfer of wealth from folks in his district who paid taxes and don't get any earmark money to those who do.

If everyone in his district benefited equally from the earmarks I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So you'd rather the money go to the Executive Branch??


Rand at least recognizes that what he is doing is only symbolic against pork barrel spending at the Federal level, but ultimately he's just helping to fund the wars and whatever the Executive Branch wants to spend money on..

I'd rather see money going towards some random shrimp thing in Texas than going towards making bombs to kill people in another land.

[Michigan11]

The people in a district don't exactly get anything back from these earmarks - special intersts do however. As in West Virginia, pave everything, means a few paving company owners are doing very well, that is just one example. It's not like individuals are actually getting their taxes back.. However I see both sides of this issue, and I think this issue can only help him amongst the republican primary voters.

Nice video by Wendy on this issue btw...

[johnrocks]

Not a huge issue like Iraq,healthcare or the economy but it seems he may be pandering to the choir here a bit.

[TCE]

The people in a district don't exactly get anything back from these earmarks - special intersts do however. As in West Virginia, pave everything, means a few paving company owners are doing very well, that is just one example. It's not like individuals are actually getting their taxes back.. However I see both sides of this issue, and I think this issue can only help him amongst the republican primary voters.

Nice video by Wendy on this issue btw...

Individuals usually are helped eventually. For instance, a few years back, $2.5 million was set aside for new bike paths in Wisconsin. Sure, some company got rich off of that, but the bikers also benefited. Like Danno said, I would rather the latter scenario instead of paying for more bombs or giving more money to the Department of Education, for instance.

[Brett]

Even if Ron's position is correct Rand's will be much easier to sell to Republicans trying to be more fiscally conservative.

[MikeStanart]

Even if Ron's position is correct Rand's will be much easier to sell to Republicans trying to be more fiscally conservative.

BINGO

I agree with Ron in regards to where our country is at. But in an ideal world (and if you want to get elected), I agree with Rand. :)

[Skyhawk02]

I guess the reason why I agree with Rand is that if earmarks are just to give money back to the people then why bother taking the money in the first place?

And how can you justify adding earmarks to bills when the government is already spending more money than they have?

It is not accurate to say the the money will just go to the executive branch if it is not earmarked, the executive branch will spend however much money they need in addition to whatever else is spent.

If people in the districts need more of their money back the best way to do that is by not taxing them as much in the first place.

[markie]

I guess the reason why I agree with Rand is that if earmarks are just to give money back to the people then why bother taking the money in the first place?

And how can you justify adding earmarks to bills when the government is already spending more money than they have?

It is not accurate to say the the money will just go to the executive branch if it is not earmarked, the executive branch will spend however much money they need in addition to whatever else is spent.

If people in the districts need more of their money back the best way to do that is by not taxing them as much in the first place.

I agree. I'm sure the analysts in the executive branch factor in the typical amount of pork spending and increase their budget proposal by that much. That way the president gets to carry out his agenda and congress gets to bring bring special projects back to the doners that put them in office. And who gets left holding the bag? Well the little guy, of course!

It's the corruption that Rand is taking a stand against. That's why it's so impressive that our contributions average less than $100 each.