Tea Party Caucus Took $1 Billion In Earmarks

[malkusm]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/tea-party-caucu.php


Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

[MRoCkEd]

Imagine how high that number would be if Ron was in the caucus. :p

But did these people take a pledge against them? And did they vote for the final spending bills?

[Bern]

... earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

Added to the budget or appropriated from the Executive Branch's discretion? If the earmarks had not existed, is there any evidence that the budget would have been less?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Imagine how high that number would be if Ron was in the caucus. :p

Fox News: Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html)


And did they vote for the final spending bills?

Does it matter? With Ron Paul, he inserts the earmarks into bills he knows full well are going to pass and then votes against them.

Inserting them to begin with is the problem. They're nothing but vote-buying bribes.

[Slutter McGee]

We all know the reasons for Ron Paul's earmarks. Frankly, I agree with him. The problem is the image of earmarks in an era of big spending. We of course realize that the money would go back into the treasury and be spent by the Executive Branch. At least this way it goes back to the people.

But the image is politically bad. Most people don't understand the argument. Earmarks do lead to vote buying in somecases and their symbolism is more important than their reality. I hope Dr. Paul will keep that in mind.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[cswake]

Does it matter? With Ron Paul, he inserts the earmarks into bills he knows full well are going to pass and then votes against them.

Inserting them to begin with is the problem. They're nothing but vote-buying bribes.That's the nuance with Ron's situation - no one is buying his vote, so the criticism isn't valid. He's just returning the federal taxes to his constituents. He's absolutely right that the problem is with the politicians and their lack of ethics. Banning earmarks won't stop the backroom deals and instead give the President leverage over Congress.

[Slutter McGee]

That's the nuance with Ron's situation - no one is buying his vote, so the criticism isn't valid. He's just returning the federal taxes to his constituents.

We understand that. Most do not. Not in the era of bloated government and reckless spending.

Slutter McGee

[specsaregood]

Oh noes! 1 whole billion! LOL That would cover what? one day of our overseas military adventurism?

[Kregisen]

Oh noes! 1 whole billion! LOL That would cover what? one day of our overseas military adventurism?

More like 10 hours

[Acala]

We all know the reasons for Ron Paul's earmarks. Frankly, I agree with him. The problem is the image of earmarks in an era of big spending. We of course realize that the money would go back into the treasury and be spent by the Executive Branch. At least this way it goes back to the people.

But the image is politically bad. Most people don't understand the argument. Earmarks do lead to vote buying in somecases and their symbolism is more important than their reality. I hope Dr. Paul will keep that in mind.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

This is the best argument I have yet seen against the Good Doctor's earmarks.

[malkusm]

I just posted this because I find it hypocritical that Republicans -- and especially Tea Partiers -- are leading the charge against earmarks. Whatever way the political winds are blowing....

[specsaregood]

I just posted this because I find it hypocritical that Republicans -- and especially Tea Partiers -- are leading the charge against earmarks. Whatever way the political winds are blowing....

Really? So people can't change their mind or reform their actions? Seems to me that members of N.A. and AA are often the best advocates against drug/alcohol abuse. Maybe some just want you to think it is hypocritical.

[angelatc]

I consider this issue to be like term limits. If a politician supports term limits, and then term limits himself, he isn't around to help impose term limits.

As long as I believe these people will vote to ban earmarks, I'm content at this juncture. Otherwise the blue states will suck up all the cash and starve the red states out of existence.

[Slutter McGee]

I just posted this because I find it hypocritical that Republicans -- and especially Tea Partiers -- are leading the charge against earmarks. Whatever way the political winds are blowing....

I am glad you posted this malkusm, but I disagree that it is hypocritical. It does, however, appear hypcritical and that is the problem.

Another example. Rand Paul supports term limits, but is not willing to term limit himself unless everybody is. Why should a good man leave when the crap stays. In the same way, why should your district not get anything while everyone else does. A complete ban though they would support.

I agree that this is a problem, but a symbolic problem rather than idealogical one.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[malkusm]

Really? So people can't change their mind or reform their actions? Seems to me that members of N.A. and AA are often the best advocates against drug/alcohol abuse. Maybe some just want you to think it is hypocritical.

It's not like these numbers are from 2004 or 2005. These are Fiscal Year 2010 numbers. The only reason that these "Tea Party" members of Congress would have any reason to flip their rhetoric on earmarks is for political gain.

[specsaregood]

It's not like these numbers are from 2004 or 2005. These are Fiscal Year 2010 numbers. The only reason that these "Tea Party" members of Congress would have any reason to flip their rhetoric on earmarks is for political gain.

In order to prove your point or claim of hypocrisy you'll have to wait until they reverse their stance.

[malkusm]

I am glad you posted this malkusm, but I disagree that it is hypocritical. It does, however, appear hypcritical and that is the problem.

Another example. Rand Paul supports term limits, but is not willing to term limit himself unless everybody is. Why should a good man leave when the crap stays. In the same way, why should your district not get anything while everyone else does. A complete ban though they would support.

I agree that this is a problem, but a symbolic problem rather than idealogical one.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I'd agree with you, if that were an accurate representation of the historical record.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000294-503544.html

[Jordan]

I'd agree with you, if that were an accurate representation of the historical record.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000294-503544.html

Best part of the article:


The announcement comes on the heels of a move by House Democrats to ban earmarks to for-profit corporations.

[erowe1]

Does it matter? With Ron Paul, he inserts the earmarks into bills he knows full well are going to pass and then votes against them.

Inserting them to begin with is the problem. They're nothing but vote-buying bribes.

Could you explain that?

If RP votes against the bill, then how are those earmarks buying his vote?

[erowe1]

And did they vote for the final spending bills?

That is the key right there. Their job is to vote no on the bill. If they added earmarks and then voted no, then that's fine. If they voted yes, then that's where the problem lies.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Could you explain that?

If RP votes against the bill, then how are those earmarks buying his vote?

It goes two ways with earmarks.

1. Earmarks are used to buy votes of Congressmen and Senators by their leadership. Like the "Louisiana purchase' (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68975-gop-hits-landrieu-for-100-million-new-louisiana-purchase)', where democrats bought Mary Landrieu's vote for health care reform with a $100 million Medicaid earmark. This happens all the time. They use extra earmarks to entice reluctant Representatives into voting for something on the premise that the extra money to the district/state will make it all forgiven/forgotten.

2. Congressmen, acting alone, use them to keep constituents happy and 'buy' their votes at election time. See people like Robert Byrd or, now, Lisa Murkowski; who basically got elected because she promised to keep the pork flowing to Alaska and Joe Miller would not.

[Chester Copperpot]

Fox News: Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html)



Does it matter? With Ron Paul, he inserts the earmarks into bills he knows full well are going to pass and then votes against them.

Inserting them to begin with is the problem. They're nothing but vote-buying bribes.

the earmarks arent the problem.. the problem is with the spending