RP's Pork and Earmarks?

[Matt Collins]

What is up with RP's earmarks?

Apparently he has pushed for lots of pork for Texas, and then voted against the bill.

I am curious to know what yall think about this?

[steph3n]

Matt,

It has been answered on many blogs in many ways.

[Marshall]

He allocates the money to help his district because he's their rep, then votes against the budget because it's unbalanced.

[Matt Collins]

He allocates the money to help his district because he's their rep, then votes against the budget because it's unbalanced.Yes, I understand that, but really, if he knows the bills will pass regardless of his vote of "no" then isn't that a bit slippery?



I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, and I'm also partly curious myself.

[literatim]

It is congress's responsibility to decide where the current money in circulation is distributed to. If they didn't, it would sit in limbo. It is Ron Paul's job to try and get some of his district's tax money back.

[starless]

His constituents paid the taxes. If RP didn't put anything in for them, the money would simply go somewhere else. While he may not agree with the budget in the first place, at least his constituents get something for their money.

[kenc9]

But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function. ...

Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

[Spirit of '76]

This is a grossly misunderstood and propagandized issue.

The money (discretionary funds) from which those earmarks are drawn has already been set aside for spending. It will be spent whether Ron inserts earmarks or not.

If he inserts no earmarks, some other congresscritter will, or some faceless bureaucrat will divvy it out. Ron's insertion of earmarks is simply ensuring that his constituents get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.

Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.

[LibertyEagle]

Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.


That's right. They also forget to mention that he always votes against them.

[ctb619]

This is a grossly misunderstood and propagandized issue.

The money (discretionary funds) from which those earmarks are drawn has already been set aside for spending. It will be spent whether Ron inserts earmarks or not.

If he inserts no earmarks, some other congresscritter will, or some faceless bureaucrat will divvy it out. Ron's insertion of earmarks is simply ensuring that his constituents get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.

Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.

thank you

[Adamsa]

This is a grossly misunderstood and propagandized issue.

The money (discretionary funds) from which those earmarks are drawn has already been set aside for spending. It will be spent whether Ron inserts earmarks or not.

If he inserts no earmarks, some other congresscritter will, or some faceless bureaucrat will divvy it out. Ron's insertion of earmarks is simply ensuring that his constituents get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.

Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.

Well said!

[Ron Paul Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrJ4MI63yrk

Congressman Paul explains it himself in this Kudlow interview. It's basically what Spirit said. The system is flawed. Ron Paul!

[klamath]

Even a congressmen that put in zero earmarks yet voted for the whole bill is far more at fault the RP for that congressmen just voted for every earmark of the entire congress. There is a difference between earmarks and pork. Pork is when a congressmen adds a special project amendment to a bill that adds to the cost of the bill. An earmark is where a congressmen puts into a general funds allocation bill a statement how some of it should be spent. If it is going to be spent shouldn't an elected representive of the people be making the decision on how it is to be spent rather than some unaccoutable person?
"Earmarks" is the new trendy word politicians like to throw around to make it seem they are fiscally responsible. Don't vote for the da@@@ appropriations bill if you want to save money!

[Roxi]

Am I in the TWILIGHT ZONE? RP just answered that EXACT question on Cspan 3 seconds before i clicked on this thread