Ron Paul May Defy GOP Earmark Ban, Face Loss of Comittee Seat

[bobbyw24]

Three Republican congressmen have defied their party's decision to ban all earmarks for one year, a move that could cost them their committee posts.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/04/paul-cao-young-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Reps. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana and Ron Paul of Texas have joined Rep. Don Young (AK) in requesting earmarks for the 2011 fiscal year, despite a House Republican caucus vote this month to institute a moratorium on earmarks for one year.

Those members' committee assignments could be on the line, according to a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner.

"The Leaders expect all House Republican members to comply with the moratorium," the spokesman, Michael Steel, said in an email. "There will be situations where we have some confusion on how these rules are implemented, but if Members are deliberately breaking the rules, it will be a serious matter and one that the Steering Committee will consider."

Cao sits on three committees, and is the deputy ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. Paul sits on two committees, and is the ranking member on the Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. Young is the ranking member of the Resources Committee and sits on two other committees.

You can see Cao's requests, including $45 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to mantain levees, here.

Paul's office told the Times-Picayune that, because he believes the federal government takes too much money from citizens, he considers it his job to get back as much as possible. You can see his earmark requests here.

Young said in a statement that he wouldn't comply with the ban. "I am elected to serve my constituents, and as long as they continue to request federal funding for their projects of interest, then I will continue to do my best to accommodate them," he said. Young's requests are here (PDF).

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/three-congressmen-defy-gop-earmark-ban-face-losing-committee-seats.php?ref=fpb

[AuH20]

Those are two guys that Ron should not be aligned with. Not good.

[dannno]

Those are two guys that Ron should not be aligned with. Not good.

He isn't aligned with them, he's just sticking to his principles.

Good.

[muh_roads]

Goddamnit republican voters are so stupid. Everyone harps on earmarks because Palin and McCain told them to. The media...even republican radio has everyone thinking earmarks are the devil.

As long as the insidious income tax is around, earmarks are just a way for constituents to get their money back. And they make up less than 1% of the entire yearly budgets spent.

Republicans that think our money problems stem from too many earmarks are just dumb fucks who know nothing of economics and have never researched what they actually cost...next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[dannno]

Can you imagine if they ended earmarks and then just gave all that money to Obama to spend?

Why do the Republicans want that?

[muh_roads]

Can you imagine if they ended earmarks and then just gave all that money to Obama to spend?

Why do the Republicans want that?

Exactly. If the money isn't given back to the people in some way it just goes to the executive branch. Everytime I hear a dumb shit republican on the street whine about earmarks I want to slap them.

[Matt Collins]

Why do I suspect there is more to this than is being reported?

[Stary Hickory]

They won't mess with Paul, they aren't going to stir that hornets nest up.

[ctiger2]

Ron discusses this with Lew Rockwell on yesterday's podcast.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/

[RideTheDirt]

They won't mess with Paul, they aren't going to stir that hornets nest up.
^ this
stripping Paul of his seat on a committee would start a shitstorm.DC phone lines couldn't take it.

[Reason]

YouTube - Ron Paul - March 10, 2009 "We Need More Earmarks!" - C SPAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsRHougwe2g)

[specsaregood]

Can you imagine if they ended earmarks and then just gave all that money to Obama to spend?

Why do the Republicans want that?

And that is EXACTLY how he needs to frame it everytime it is brought up.

[jmdrake]

The problem with earmarks is that for most politicians it's a way for buying their vote. Here in Tennessee Jim Cooper (who was going to vote for Obamacare all along anyway) pretended to hold out. Then he said that he would vote for Obamacare because the hospitals in TN said it was a good idea. But it came out Friday before the vote that the bill contained $99 million for TN hospitals. A pittance in the grand scheme of things I know, but if it did persuade some hospitals to lobby for this bill than that's a bad thing. A small bribe is still a bride. The difference in Ron Paul's case is that the earmarks don't change his ultimate vote.

[Fox McCloud]

I really get tired of hearing about earmarks...until there's legislation that makes it so that anything that isn't earmarked goes back to the taxpayers automatically (ie: here's your second income tax check, since Congress didn't earmark everything), this is better, IMHO.

If every single Congressman abstained from earmarking, then the various federal agencies would just distribute it in the way they saw fit, which means less benefit to the people, generally speaking.

[Matt Collins]

I think this is a risky position for Ron to take. While I understand and agree with him, the "e-word" is now considered a dirty word due to a massive ignorant FUD campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

In other words this could cause him problems because people don't understand the issue.

.

[tpreitzel]

I think this is a risky position for Ron to take. While I understand and agree with him, the "e-word" is now considered a dirty word due to a massive ignorant FUD campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

In other words this could cause him problems because people don't understand the issue.

.

So cower in retreat?

No! Confront those goons who attach negative connotations to words without sufficient elaboration. The same problem exists with the "Truther" label. Either one is a "truther" or a "liar". Expose the shenanigans. Don't run from them.

[specsaregood]

So cower in retreat?

No! Confront those goons who attach negative connotations to words without sufficient elaboration. The same problem exists with the "Truther" label. Either one is a "truther" or a "liar". Expose the shenanigans. Don't run from them.

Exactly. Its not like he ever goes against his principles just because of an uneducated public.

Hell it would help if people just looked up the damn word in the dictionary.


tr.v. ear·marked, ear·mark·ing, ear·marks
1. To reserve or set aside for a particular purpose. See Synonyms at allocate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/earmark

Even by the darn definition of the word it is obvious it doesnt INCREASE the budget.

[erowe1]

Those are two guys that Ron should not be aligned with. Not good.

They're no worse than Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Pence, or any of the other phony conservative darlings.

[bunklocoempire]

Blimp.

NO fear.


Bunkloco

[JacksonianBME]

Earmarking is directing where funds go. It doesn't mean the creation of funds and if they are being earmarked for constitutionally consistent purposes there is no fault.

What an illogical position for the GOP to take. Not participating in earmarks is not going to stop out of control spending, it just means either the Dems or the Prez will have complete authority where everything goes. Dr. Paul is consistent for calling for massive budget decreases and for congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to earmark.

[specsaregood]

What an illogical position for the GOP to take. Not participating in earmarks is not going to stop out of control spending, it just means either the Dems or the Prez will have complete authority where everything goes.

It isn't illogical if that is your goal -- to have money spent by unelected officials and or a powerful executive branch (king). I think you just stumbled upon a truth. Welcome aboard!

[dannno]

I think this is a risky position for Ron to take. While I understand and agree with him, the "e-word" is now considered a dirty word due to a massive ignorant FUD campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

In other words this could cause him problems because people don't understand the issue.

.

Opportunity for education.


"Wait, that guy who wants to end the income tax and abolish a bunch of govt. departments wants more earmarks?! I wonder why that is..."

[ChaosControl]

A moratorium on ear marks is an incredibly stupid thing for the GOP to do. But then the GOP is always doing incredibly stupid things.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Republican = dumb

[Zack]

^ this
stripping Paul of his seat on a committee would start a shitstorm.DC phone lines couldn't take it.

"Operation: Shitstorm"

Hooold....HOOOOOOLD.....

[rp08orbust]

^ this
stripping Paul of his seat on a committee would start a shitstorm.DC phone lines couldn't take it.

If I were Ron, I would subtly remind the GOP leadership that keeping his committee assignments was one reason he chose not to run for president as an independent in 2008. It is in their best interest to keep him in the Republican Party in 2012 as well.

[rp08orbust]

By the way, take note of where and when this article is coming out. More evidence that straw polls matter?

[Agorism]

I this an earnmarks ban would be fine so long as the Democrats did it also.

Why didn't the R's do this when they were in the majority and actually had the votes to kill an omnibus spending bill?

As it stands, the GOP congressman get nothing while the D's get stuff for their constituents.

That seems dumb.

[specialkornflake]

Ron getting earmarks for his district probably helps him get re-elected. Nowadays, Ron Paul could probably do fine without getting earmarks for his district.

RP has been consistent on this issue, agree or disagree. I tend to agree with RP on this issue. What would we think of RP if he bowed to the Republican Caucus?

Let's roll with the punches on this one and have some fun.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't really understand Ron's rationale behind this.

The way I see it:

The government has specific constitutional duties that it has been granted the power to collect taxes in order to fund. Which means that whenever there is money left-over from having seen to it that the 17 (according to Judge Napolitano) specifically enumerated duties of the Federal government are funded, then the Federal government taxed the people too much.

The only way to appropriately rectify this situation is a tax refund to the people, directly, to those who paid taxes, or to tax less the next year.

The appropriation of that money to any project that is not authorized as a power of the Federal government is STILL a redistribution of wealth.

If anything, the thinking that "if we don't get the money back, someone else will get it" is one reason why our national debt is beating the *)%# out of our GDP.

Then again, more debt = faster collapse, so maybe it is not such a bad thing?

[Agorism]

Caring about the "National debt" requires a collective interest.

Ron Paul is more worried about his local district that some collective nationalist movement. This makes good sense considering the dem districts will be getting pork.

I don't think it makes sense to just punish republican districts while the dem districts get stuff.