Lindsey Graham: "Ron Paul is the biggest earmarker in Congress"

[Knightskye]

http://podcasting.fia.net/5046/4463158.mp3

UPDATE: Graham lied (!!!).

House
Bill Young (R-Fla.): $90,450,000 (41 projects)
Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.): $82,694,000 (51)
John Murtha (D-Pa.): 82,443,000 (34)
Harold Rogers (R-Ky.): $68,309,000 (36)
David Obey (D-Wisc.): 55,435,000 (54)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/the-largest-earmarkers-in-cong.html

[QueenB4Liberty]

And his point? Ron Paul isn't the one saying the money should be spent.

[Travlyr]

I don't know that for sure, but if he is... it's brilliant! I applaud Dr. Paul for his genius approach!

[Matt Collins]

Ron earmarks as a way to bring the people's money back to their district that the government has taken from them. Anyone who rails against earmarks is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how the budget works. Money is allocated in the budget to be spent but it is not always assigned where to be spent. If Ron didn't get it spent on his own community, then it would go to some other project or be left up to Presidential discretion. Either way the money is already spent, why not have it at least go to something that benefits the people who have paid for it?


Lindsey Graham is beating a dead horse on this issue.

[Brian Defferding]

Ron Paul sure as hell is not the biggest earmarker, and anyone who soapboxes about earmarks is often being disingenuous on the subject, or at least practicing some dishonesty/half truths. Ron Paul always votes against the spending bills, so nobody can say that he genuinely wants the money spent. It is just that if he had to chose between the money going to ill-advised wars/black hole ponzi schemes and public parks in his region/hurricane relief, well you gotta make lemonade from a lemon somehow.

[LibertyEagle]

n/m

[Mini-Me]

Ron earmarks as a way to bring the people's money back to their district that the government has taken from them. Anyone who rails against earmarks is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how the budget works. Money is allocated in the budget to be spent but it is not always assigned where to be spent. If Ron didn't get it spent on his own community, then it would go to some other project or be left up to Presidential discretion. Either way the money is already spent, why not have it at least go to something that benefits the people who have paid for it?


Lindsey Graham is beating a dead horse on this issue.

Agreed, but I do wonder: Private earmarks are ultimately a form of corporate welfare, and they distort the economy. Wouldn't it be possible for Paul to appropriate the money to go back to municipalities instead (presumably so that the municipalities could pass tax savings onto locals)? Or would that face too much resistance in Congress and result in the money going to an entirely different district? Or is Paul two steps ahead and already doing exactly this for his earmarks, and still getting torn up for it?

[Sola_Fide]

Taxation by force is such a stupid and treacherous idea....

[Agorism]

I like how Graham goes around trying to piss off every small group, then tries his damned to still win his primaries, and spend the next 3-4 years gloating about. The it's soak, scrub, rinse, repeat all over again.

[Vessol]

Bitching about earmarks is akin to bitching about a single trashed soda can sitting in a landfill of garbage the size of a football field.

If you're actually worried about spending(or garbage), then complain about the whole budget(landfill), not that earmark(soda can)

[trey4sports]

it was awfully funny to see how Grahamnesty had changed his tone towards Ron Paul. While he wasn't kissing our ass he might be "getting the point" that he cant railroad us anymore

[sailingaway]

I don't know, I doubt it. But I actually agree with his position over Rand's. Rand thinks the system HAS to be changed altogether and wants support doing that, and maybe in the Senate it will be easier. From the House, Ron can't even get a bill voted on without the speaker putting it up. However, I absolutely agree that separation of powers has been completely messed up and that if they don't earmark it isn't that the money isn't spent, it is just given as a blank check to the executive to have an officeworker decide where it goes behind closed doors. Both Constitutional separation of the power of the purse from the executive and transparency, in that instance, are better served by stating where money goes in the bills.

However, Ron's earmarks are in the amendment stage where he always tries to make a bill better in case it passes. He ends up voting AGAINST the bill, if the spending is unconstitutional, so if all voted with the constitution, as he does, he wouldn't get the earmarks at all.

But the procedural issue just isn't a huge one to me, to hold against Rand. I understand where he is coming from, I just agree with Ron, not him, on this point.

[sofia]

yeah but at least Ron doesnt get his jollies off by having dudes bugger him in the cornhole like you do Lindsey...

[brandon]

Agreed, but I do wonder: Private earmarks are ultimately a form of corporate welfare, and they distort the economy. Wouldn't it be possible for Paul to appropriate the money to go back to municipalities instead (presumably so that the municipalities could pass tax savings onto locals)? Or would that face too much resistance in Congress and result in the money going to an entirely different district? Or is Paul two steps ahead and already doing exactly this for his earmarks, and still getting torn up for it?

He *could* do this, but that's not the way incumbents get reelected. As much as Ron Paul is a godsend federally, he is still a politician that needs to satisfy his local schools, churches, and unions to get reelected.

[specsaregood]

But I actually agree with his position over Rand's.

I have a hunch that their positions are different because of the political office they seek. In short, if Ron was a senator I think he would be anti-earmark as well and if Rand was a congressman he would do the same thing his pops does: submit all earmarks requested by his constituents. Is earmarking the proper role of a Senator? The house is supposed to originate all spending bills and control the purse strings.

[ronpaulraps]

Lindsey Graham Is A Bum. I Dislike Him More Then McCain

[Inkblots]

Well, aside from the fact that earmarked spending constitutes only 2% of the budget, and that Dr. Paul of course never votes for these unbalanced budgets, Ol' Tinsides Grahamnesty is being fundamentally dishonest about what Ron Paul actually does. He's counting on people not understanding that there are 2 different kinds of earmarks.

Appropriations earmarks, that is, earmarks added to appropriations bills, have the effect of increasing Federal spending, and also likely contribute to larger spending increases, through earmark trading and as an inducement to members to vote through the big ticket spending items in appropriations bills just to get their district's earmarks through.

On the other hand, "carve-out" earmarks are earmarks that aren't on an appropriations bill and therefore merely serve to allocate already apportioned funds, rather than leaving allocation of the appropriated funds entirely up to bureaucrats in the executive branch.

The latter type of earmarking is an important democratic tool and is a vital part of the balance of powers; the same applies in theory to the former, but is probably outweighed by the bad effects engendered by legislative horsetrading.

I believe the earmarks Dr. Paul requests are carve-out earmarks. Graham counts on people not understanding the distinction, but the truth is that they don't add a penny to the deficit, do nothing to increase spending, but do serve to make Federal spending more democratically accountable.

[libertybrewcity]

I am willing to bet Byrd was the biggest ear marker in Congress.

[Mini-Me]

He *could* do this, but that's not the way incumbents get reelected. As much as Ron Paul is a godsend federally, he is still a politician that needs to satisfy his local schools, churches, and unions to get reelected.

It's a shame, considering his ordinary non-special interest constituents still don't see any of their money back, and changing that would be a good way to inspire voter loyalty...if only the schools, churches, unions, etc. didn't have such a soapbox to manipulate people from.

[daviddee]

...

[Flirple]

Ron earmarks as a way to bring the people's money back to their district that the government has taken from them. Anyone who rails against earmarks is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how the budget works. Money is allocated in the budget to be spent but it is not always assigned where to be spent. If Ron didn't get it spent on his own community, then it would go to some other project or be left up to Presidential discretion. Either way the money is already spent, why not have it at least go to something that benefits the people who have paid for it?

Exactly. So why does Rand rail against earmarks?

[Bman]

Don't hate the player... Hate the game.

Yup. If everyone voted like Ron it would be a non-issue.

[jkr]

biGGest

and

cOc sker come to mind, but i dont really know that either, do i LYNDSY?

[anaconda]

Why are we going over this again?

[nobody's_hero]

What would be the risk-benefit outcome if Ron Paul decided to give up earmarking?

I mean, that's about the only ammo that Ron Paul's detractors have against him (since the "racist" labels wouldn't stick). If he gave up earmarking, he's not likely to lose an election in his home district. I seriously doubt that the people in Clute, TX vote for Ron Paul because he 'brings home the bacon.'

So, the fact that he still earmarks is well, it looks like he's bringing this on himself. Right or wrong, it's not a big sacrifice to give up the practice of earmarking.

[LibertyEagle]

What would be the risk-benefit outcome if Ron Paul decided to give up earmarking?

I mean, that's about the only ammo that Ron Paul's detractors have against him (since the "racist" labels wouldn't stick). If he gave up earmarking, he's not likely to lose an election in his home district. I seriously doubt that the people in Clute, TX vote for Ron Paul because he 'brings home the bacon.'

So, the fact that he still earmarks is well, it looks like he's bringing this on himself. Right or wrong, it's not a big sacrifice to give up the practice of earmarking.

It's a non-issue. Ron Paul believes it is his duty as a representative of his district to pass along the people's requests. That is all he is doing. He is not voting for the the actual spending if/when the earmarks show up in bills.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Money well-spent.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2i78qyh.jpg

As we all know: the U.S. Constitution mandates millions of dollars to a private company to sell their product. :rolleyes:

This is probably the one issue that bothers me about Ron Paul. Paul rails against earmarks and then inserts them into unrelated bills at a rate greater than probably any other Republican in the U.S. House. Bills that he knows full well are going to pass but votes against anyway; I guess to look principled on this. But to me personally, it sort of makes him look like a typical politician using the federal trough to buy constituents off.

Ron Paul should give up earmarking. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but it's also the best thing to do politically if he's planning another presidential run in 2012. Earmarks were a big knock against Paul back in 2008 on RedState, FreeRepublic, HotAir, etc.

[erowe1]

Paul rails against earmarks and then inserts them into unrelated bills at a rate greater than probably any other Republican in the U.S. House.

When has he ever railed against earmarks?

And what would you consider a better way to spend that money that he had earmarked for the shrimp thing? As long as the bill passed (and note that RP voted No on it), and he didn't have that earmark, then that money still would have been spent according to the decision of some bureaucrat in the executive branch, and probably on something worse.

[erowe1]

Agreed, but I do wonder: Private earmarks are ultimately a form of corporate welfare, and they distort the economy. Wouldn't it be possible for Paul to appropriate the money to go back to municipalities instead (presumably so that the municipalities could pass tax savings onto locals)?

Why is municipality welfare any better than corporate welfare? And why do you think it distorts the economy any less?

If RP earmarks it to a public library so they can build a fancy modern new audio-visual wing, where people can check out all the latest Hollywood hits for free (which is the kind of thing a municipality would do with a windfall from Congress), do you not think that distorts the economy for all the for profit video rental places there?

An earmark I'd like to see is one that distributes cash money back to the taxpayers in his district in amounts proportional to however much they paid in income taxes.

But even aside from that, if a bad bill is going to pass (which is outside RP's control--all he can do is vote no on it, which he does), then the best (and most constitutional) case scenario for it would be that 100% of it be allocated by Congress in earmarks.

[sailingaway]

I believe he is. This was discussed during the campaign...

Ron's defense was, "I am merely returning the money back to my district" and "I vote against it all anyways"

His explanation at the time was quite flimsy... He furthered it by saying that the money is already appropriated in the budget... It needs to be spent.

Needless to say he earmarks a ton of stuff and then tries to distance himself from it by not voting for it... knowing it will pass anyways.

There is really little defense, but he is a politician and he does need to bring the bacon home.

Don't hate the player... Hate the game.

I consider it a principled Constitutional stance, so I disagree with you. Bloody war won the separation of the purse from the executive to the legislature back with the Magna Carta. Allowing blank checks to the executive is part of the unitary president concept that is seeing Obama write executive orders as if by fiat he could say, control the internet (internet czar etc when Rockerfeller's internet kill switch brought political flak). Of course he gets political benefit, and if he asked for wasted spending would be rightly castigated. Here, however, he is beaten up both for voting against the funding for his district and for the amendment so his constituents who will be paying their share of the cost get some of it back IF others pass the bill over his 'no' vote.

I literally think those who are so focused on earmarks in any event are victims of the brainwashing trying to push people to support a 'line item veto', a MAJOR abrogation of separation of powers. this is a tiny number where spending is concerned even WERE it new money, and it isn't, it is carved from the blank check the executive gets.

I am much more concerned about a 'unitary president' than I am about Ron getting money to repair hurricane damaged bridges and sea walls in Galveston, in a bill he ultimately votes against, in any event.

[Ricky201]

Hmm let's see...would I be more pissed at Obama using money that Republicans don't want to spend on funding abortions overseas and giving his looney friends in the executive branch a raise, or would I rather it go to public works projects in Ron Paul's district that will at least give some people jobs at the time? Neither one is something that I generally favor, but I think people in Dr. Paul's district have a better sense of what to do with the money than what the Obama administration would do with it.

[johnrocks]

I used to oppose earmarks until I saw that people that I normally disagree with opposing them such as McCain so I looked into what they really were all about, now I wish MORE was earmarked even though I wish LESS was spent.

Does that make sense?:p

[Sola_Fide]

Earmarks vs. The Military-Industrial Complex


Which would help balance our budgets more if it were ended?


I don't like earmarks either, but they represent a small amount of the budget compared to our warfare state. Ron's focus is on the right thing.

[MRoCkEd]

Earmarking simply means allocating spending. An example of a bill with no earmarks is TARP - no accountability there.

With that being said, earmarks are used to buy votes, plain and simple. Ron Paul votes against the spending bills, but says, "If the money must be spent, I'll spend it on my constituents."

Rand Paul, while respecting his father's position, believes it is better to abolish earmarks altogether. While this could be condemned as promoting a lack of accountability in spending, it also could be seen as making it much more difficult to "buy votes," meaning these spending bills would be less likely to even pass.

This issue is probably similar to tax rebates. Ron Paul will support any tax rebate, for any reason, even if it's only for people who drive environmentally friendly cars.

Justin Amash, however, believes this method is part of a culture of corruption where everyone's taxes are kept high but politically connected groups are rewarded with cuts. He only supports tax cuts that are broad based.

[paulitics]

It's just a red herring created by the media, to make you care about the trivial.

It accounts for less than 1% of federal spending. If the media, and schmuck politicians like Lindsey Graham talk about earmarks, than you can bet that it really amounts to nothing.

[erowe1]

It's just a red herring created by the media, to make you care about the trivial.

It accounts for less than 1% of federal spending. If the media, and schmuck politicians like Lindsey Graham talk about earmarks, than you can bet that it really amounts to nothing.

It accounts for 1%, but it adds 0% to the amount spent.

Earmarks should account for 100% of the amount spent.

This is one of the things that disappoints me about Rand. The way he buys into these phony conservative diversions like getting rid of earmarks and having a balanced budget amendment. When you see the entire centrist Republican establishment being for those things, and you see the most serious fiscal conservatives who actually want to tackle the major spending problems and not the nickle and dime garbage, like Ron Paul and John Hostettler, being against those things, that should tell you it's worth looking at those ideas more closely to see why that is.

[georgiaboy]

I used to oppose earmarks until I saw that people that I normally disagree with opposing them such as McCain so I looked into what they really were all about, now I wish MORE was earmarked even though I wish LESS was spent.

Does that make sense?:p

Yes, and agreed.

Most people equate earmarking with spending, so in their minds less of one means less of another. MSM and pols perpetuate this thinking.

It just ain't true.

Every dollar spent should be earmarked (yay earmarking), but much less to zero dollars should be spent by the fed gov't in most spending areas. Earmarks should be available in advance for review and comment/change by congressmen, their constituencies, & the voters.

[ItsTime]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Earmarks (House floor 3/10/09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoOX9p07xOk)

[HOLLYWOOD]

The true Master of the Mouth is Lindsey Graham.

Like in a courtroom Graham's Accusatory simple statement.... Jurors have preconceived notions about a defendant, you can begin in opening to embed your case theme into the ignorance of the jury... normally there would be a sustained Objection, the judge warning Graham(lawyer), and the judge advising the jury to disregard that last false statement... YEAH RIGHT... that statement does stick.

Just like what Lindsey Graham states, "Ron Paul is the biggest Earmarker in CONgress"

This is what the listeners here... simple statement to have simple minds hold onto. The Clever art of Lindsey Graham leading the listeners, like leading witnesses or juries. That's why Graham continues to be reelected in CONgress by one liners and heavily influenced jingoistic campaign script to the conservative majority South Carolinian.

[Sola_Fide]

YouTube - Ron Paul on Earmarks (House floor 3/10/09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoOX9p07xOk)



That was so good...

[K466]

Good news! Lindsey brat can't ignore Paul's influence!

[Todd]

Graham is grasping. He's not sure if Paul is the biggest earmarker or not, but he's probably going off the Meet the Press interview when Russert tried to make Dr. Paul look like a hypocrite.

about 5:38

YouTube - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM&feature=related)

[Mini-Me]

Why is municipality welfare any better than corporate welfare? And why do you think it distorts the economy any less?

If RP earmarks it to a public library so they can build a fancy modern new audio-visual wing, where people can check out all the latest Hollywood hits for free (which is the kind of thing a municipality would do with a windfall from Congress), do you not think that distorts the economy for all the for profit video rental places there?

An earmark I'd like to see is one that distributes cash money back to the taxpayers in his district in amounts proportional to however much they paid in income taxes.

But even aside from that, if a bad bill is going to pass (which is outside RP's control--all he can do is vote no on it, which he does), then the best (and most constitutional) case scenario for it would be that 100% of it be allocated by Congress in earmarks.

Really, my idea was meant to be an indirect way of [hopefully] enabling the bolded part above anyway. If not, it's in hope that the money would be spent on "essential" municipal services that residents would have been locally retaxed for otherwise (I put that in quotes because I'd rather the market handle them, but that's a pipe dream for now). Basically, the idea is that if the funds are going back to locals who were extorted for them, the worst possible distribution of them would be private special interests, since the actual taxpayers would see the least amount of their money back.

I guess you're proposing to have the government directly pay back individual taxpayers for the earmark, but I seriously doubt the feds would stand for having to directly calculate how much to give back to individual citizens. Even if they did do this, just to deliberately spend more money on federal workers, it would likely cost as much as the earmark is worth anyway.

[oyarde]

Lindsey Graham Is A Bum. I Dislike Him More Then McCain

I believe McCain to be honest ( even though I dislike many of his ideas ) . I do not know alot about Lindsey , but if you watch enough interviews with him , you get the flavor that he is likely a typical dishonest politician .

[jabf2006]

Ron earmarks as a way to bring the people's money back to their district that the government has taken from them. Anyone who rails against earmarks is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how the budget works. Money is allocated in the budget to be spent but it is not always assigned where to be spent. If Ron didn't get it spent on his own community, then it would go to some other project or be left up to Presidential discretion. Either way the money is already spent, why not have it at least go to something that benefits the people who have paid for it?


Lindsey Graham is beating a dead horse on this issue.

Are you not a rather large supporter of a candidate that often rails against earmarks?

[oyarde]

Are you not a rather large supporter of a candidate that often rails against earmarks?

I wish earmarks were illegal . There should be nothing attached to bills . If it is important , it should have its own bill , be read , and voted on.

[remain_nameless]

Anyone who rails against earmarks is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant of how the budget works.

accidental fail

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/03/earmark-ban-coming/

YouTube - Rand Paul on Ending Earmarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOXy3TniZRU)

YouTube - Rand Paul Talks About His Opposition To Earmarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-EJMzGZdUA)

[Matt Collins]

Are you not a rather large supporter of a candidate that often rails against earmarks?


accidental fail
Of course Rand does not apply to what I had mentioned because he is talking about ending them all together. :rolleyes:

[jabf2006]

Of course Rand does not apply to what I had mentioned because he is talking about ending them all together. :rolleyes:

That's fine. Where does he talk about what he replaces them with?

[Knightskye]

That's fine. Where does he talk about what he replaces them with?

"I'd like to make it real flat like zero."

[Matt Collins]

"I'd like to make it real flat like zero."
Thank you for making my point for me. :)

[Knightskye]

Thank you for making my point for me. :)

:cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Graham, a typical politican, is playing on the ignorance of the majority of voters. Unfortunately, this strategy usually works.