View Full Version : Dallas Morning News Hit Piece

06-30-2007, 02:14 AM
A new hit piece on Ron Paul, this time from the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-hitsandmisses_30edi.ART.State.Edition1.437f78e.htm l):

Wanted: consistency

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, is known for principled libertarian stands against government spending. But it turns out Dr. Paul's principles don't apply equally to procuring pork for his Southeast Texas district. According to letters released by his office, Dr. Paul, who's running for president, has requested millions for the Army Corps of Engineers to do maintenance on the Texas City Channel, as well as money for a bridge in Galveston. Fair enough even a small government has to take care of infrastructure. But why has Dr. Paul requested $8 million for shrimp marketing? Physician, heal thyself.

It never ends. I love the holier-than-thou smugness of that last line.

06-30-2007, 04:12 AM
:rolleyes: :mad:

06-30-2007, 04:18 AM
Someone around here has a Ghandi quote for their signature and it says, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." If this is indeed true, then we are moving into phase three (and by far the most difficult)....As much as I hate it, I love the fact that the movement is moving forward.

06-30-2007, 04:42 AM
Of course, the obvious question: Just because he put those in as earmarks, does that mean he votes for them?

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly allocate funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills.

Ron Paul along with a very small number of others in Congress actually released a listing of their earmarked funds, most congress critters have refused to do this...presumably to avoid embarrassing questions. But, one must keep in mind that earmarking doesn't mean that something is automatically funded. It simply means:

In public finance, an earmark is a requirement that all or a portion of a certain source of revenue (such as a tax) must be devoted towards spending on a specific public expenditure. Earmarking bypasses the normal procedure where tax revenue is pooled in a general fund which is then distributed among separate spending programs.

So, without talking to the Good Doctor directly to be sure, these earmarks may be entirely and legitimately based on received tax revenue from the respective constituency listed in the earmark. Ron Paul, who believes in balanced budgets, has also stated that taxes derived from a community should be (as much as possible) returned to the community.

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress has, within the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the power to direct the appropriations of money drawn from the treasury. This includes the power to earmark funds it appropriates (in other words, "to designate revenue") to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process is a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the federal government. Each of the appropriations subcommittees have their own practices for determining whether and what kind of projects they are willing to earmark, and each sets rules for how earmark requests are to be received from members, including setting deadlines and required format for submissions.

I would like to hear an answer from Ron Paul's folks, it's worth clearing up.


Another blogger attack but with some great explanatory comments.