Santorum Campaign Responds to Attack Ad

[Gravik]

Saw this in a WA Post article:

In response to the new Paul ad, Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said Paul has no room to speak about fiscal conservatism, considering his habit of inserting earmarks into bills and then voting against them, only to see the bills pass — an apparent attempt to keep his record clean.

“The last person I’m going to take a lecture from on spending is Ron Paul – the number four earmarker in all of Congress,” Gidley said.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If I were ever in Congress I'd seriously request billions upon billions in earmarks every year, and for the dumbest and most ridiculous things I could find.

[JJ2]

Saw this in a WA Post article:

In response to the new Paul ad, Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said Paul has no room to speak about fiscal conservatism, considering his habit of inserting earmarks into bills and then voting against them, only to see the bills pass — an apparent attempt to keep his record clean.

“The last person I’m going to take a lecture from on spending is Ron Paul – the number four earmarker in all of Congress,” Gidley said.

But...but...Santorum said last night that he was "not being critical" of Paul's earmarking!

[SCOTUSman]

Good. The point of Ron asking for earmarks is that he knows that Congress will spend that money anyways (or the Executive branch will take that money and use it on the ABC agencies), so he wants the money taken by the Federal Government to at least go back to his congressional district. It is the only way to get some of the money stolen from his constituents to get some type of return on it.

If everyone took RP's position on earmarks, none would pass. It would fail 0 to 435.

[specsaregood]

Good piece to have on hand:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/128479-sen-inhofe-on-warpath-against-proposed-earmark-ban



Inhofe, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, wants to block a proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) that would ban earmarks for the incoming 112th Congress. The vote would be by secret ballot, apply only to Senate Republicans and would not have the force of law.

Inhofe concedes that DeMint is likely to get the moratorium passed by the GOP conference, but says he is prepared to give floor speeches that single out DeMint and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another longtime earmark opponent, for hypocrisy.

In a phone interview with The Hill, Inhofe said that the Constitution specifically grants spending power to Congress, and that ceding earmark authority to the executive branch would effectively strip the Senate of its spending power.

“I know politically it’s the dumbest thing for me to say I’m for earmarks, but it would cede authority to President Obama,” Inhofe said. “But McCain and DeMint are not being honest about how they define them. I’ve been ranked as the most conservative member of the Senate, so this is coming from a conservative.

[FriedChicken]

Santorum follows a pattern:

1. repeals his voting record
2. justifies his voting record
3. points to someone else as being "worse"

If Ron is the last person he'd take criticism from on fiscal responsibility ... who is the first? G. dubya?

[sailingaway]

Ron voted for ZERO Spending for those earmarks. Unlike Santorum, and Gingrich. In fact, ONLY Ron Paul can say that. Santorum is hoping the American people are idiots. Clearly, from the polls, he is too often correct..... :mad:

[Paulitics 2011]

Umm...even if this is true, earmarks make up less than 2% of the budget. Santorum not only earmarks, but also votes on massive spending bills.

But alas, it is not true. Santorum is simply preying off people's ignorance of the system.

Ron Paul would rather the earmark spending not be spent at all. But since he knows it WILL pass, he slips in clauses that return money to his district. Because while he'd rather not see the legislation pass at all, he'd rather see it pass with money returned to his district than none returned to his district.

It's not that hard to understand...

[Highstreet]

Ron voted for ZERO Spending for those earmarks. Unlike Santorum, and Gingrich. In fact, ONLY Ron Paul can say that. Santorum is hoping the American people are idiots. Clearly, from the polls, he is too often correct..... :mad:

The only problem is that Paul just needs to define earmarks as TRANSPARENCY.
Currently people think they are the pork.
Thank idiots for that false definition.

He could also draw the contrast that you are arguing about 1% of the budget, while he is the only one who wants to cut like 25% of it in the 1st year.

[papitosabe]

someone please explain earmarks to me like I'm a 5 yr old...jeez, the candidates last night I don't think even understand it...anyone?

[Danan]

someone please explain earmarks to me like I'm a 5 yr old...jeez, the candidates last night I don't think even understand it...anyone?

As I understand it you can add earmarks at various bills that pledge spending to certain projects. If there are no earmarks in the bill, the executive branch can decide freely how to spend the money. But then again, I'm everything but an expert. =D

[sailingaway]

someone please explain earmarks to me like I'm a 5 yr old...jeez, the candidates last night I don't think even understand it...anyone?

Ron understands it. It is about separation of powers and spending is supposed to be in Congress. One of the scary things was Romney saying as president he would 'ban' earmarks. Really? How? The legislature has controlled the purses since the Magna Carta to protect us from tyranny of an individual. Earmarks are a dirty word for designating spending, used by those who want an unconstitutional line item veto to expand the power of the executive branch.

Ron votes to designate where hte money which is going to be included in the bill goes, he does not INCREASE the amount to be spent, and he does that at the amendment of the bill stage. Then they turn to whether to vote for the spending bill or not. Those who sold their votes for earmarks now vote for the bill with their earmark in it.. Ron Paul ALWAYS votes against it. He thinks every penny should be designated or "earmarked" by congress because otherwise the executive doles it out behind closed doors to croneys with no transparency. Congressmen have their names on their projects. He doesn't put in boondoggles, but in any event he votes against everything. If others did, there would be none of the spending.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If I were ever in Congress I'd seriously request billions upon billions in earmarks every year, and for the dumbest and most ridiculous things I could find.

A group researching different drinks or foods that perfume farts?

Federal funding request granted!

[specsaregood]

someone please explain earmarks to me like I'm a 5 yr old...jeez, the candidates last night I don't think even understand it...anyone?

It is really simple.

The budget numbers are agreed to in spring. Earmarks are added in committee in summer. Anything not earmarked during the summer goes to the executive branch to decide how to spend when the budget is passed. They don't add 1 cent of spending, because the budget numbers are already decided before a single earmark is ever added.

[Matthanuf06]

The problem is the structure of our political system. You really can't blame nearly any politician for earmarks. Their constituents are paying taxes, so the choice is do you want a bs project in your district that benefits your citizens (Albeit still a wasteful project) or have your citizens pay for a bs project across the nation.

The fact is you can try to fix and change the system AND play the game within the system at the same time.

[socal]

But...but...Santorum said last night that he was "not being critical" of Paul's earmarking!
From the rush transcript,

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.05.html


SANTORUM: Hold on. Hold on.

Mitt, I agree with you. I support -- I support the line-item veto. I voted for a line-item veto so we could do just that. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck it down. I would like to go back, as president, again, and give the president the authority to line-item veto.

But that's not the issue. The issue is were they transparent? And the bottom line was, when I was in the United States Senate, there was transparency, and Congressman Paul, who is one of the most prolific earmarkers in the Congress today, is -- would tell you...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (OFF-MIKE).

SANTORUM: And I'm not -- I'm not criticizing; I'm just saying that's a fact, that...

(LAUGHTER)

... that he -- he...

(APPLAUSE)

(BOOING)