Now, how to deal with this?

[Wyurm]

I was afraid this would happen: 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.

[Kuldebar]

Brought up here: link (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=43978#post43978)

As for dealing with it, look at the comments after reading this blogger smear:

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2...ome-the-bacon/


If I remember correctly, he puts in earmarks to benefit those in his district, then votes against the bill. He'd prefer no spending increases at all, but if it passes anyway, then at least his constituents get something for their tax dollars.

Mike at 12:42AM on Jun 30th 2007


He's also one of the few that will actually tell you his earmarks. Let's see a comparative list of ALL the members before you go casting stones.

Rachel at 12:52AM on Jun 30th 2007


Earmarks is not what you think they are. Here is an article with an explanation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html.

Here is a short snippet from it

"... even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not save a single penny in the federal budget. ... earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.

Sergey at 1:05AM on Jun 30th 2007


What a hack article. Pathetic. Are you too thick to understand what Paul is doing or are you misleading readers on purpose? He has a responsibility to return the money stolen from his district if the spending bills pass and has an oath to uphold that requires him to vote against the bills, which he does.

Awful "journalism."

Charles Wesley Fowler at 1:33AM on Jun 30th 2007



Er, what is he supposed to do, make sure the people of his district do not see the money that has already been confiscated from their earnings?

The fact that he votes against these spending bills should tell you the whole story. If the money is being taken, why shouldn't the people of Congressman Paul's district get some back?

But it seems that you are not interested in the whole story. ...

Garry at 4:04AM on Jun 30th 2007

[The Dane]

Its like saying that he should refrain from getting a part of the cake for his own voters, when its very obvious that this is excactly one of the jobs he was elected for. What RP is doing now is trying to change that system on a national basis.

Sometimes you are put to do a job you dont like. Im sure that he would have had big problems with reelection if he refrain from that money and they go to some industy in south carolina or whereever.

If the person who wrote that note is so unhappy with big government support for national industry, then the only thing that would make sense is for him to support Ron Paul, and get him elected so he can correct the system on a national level.

[Wyurm]

no, I know the situation, I'm well aware of why he did what he did. However, these people that are seeing his requests for funding don't know why he did it. I'm not asking how to respond to them, I'm asking how we get the message out there so people realize that Dr. Paul was doing what he has to do as a congressman, but then he would vote no.

For example, that comments section cant be replied to. I believe an explaination of this should be accessable.

[LibertyEagle]

no, I know the situation, I'm well aware of why he did what he did. However, these people that are seeing his requests for funding don't know why he did it. I'm not asking how to respond to them, I'm asking how we get the message out there so people realize that Dr. Paul was doing what he has to do as a congressman, but then he would vote no.

For example, that comments section cant be replied to. I believe an explaination of this should be accessable.

Agreed. People will understand, if it's explained; otherwise they will be totally confused.

I wonder how this can/should be done? HQ needs to get on top of this ASAP, IMO.

[FluffyUnbound]

I think the way to deal with it is to demand that the DMN reporter produce a record of Paul casting a vote for a budget resolution containing any of those items.

A member of Congress is defined by his VOTES. Period.

[Kuldebar]

Agreed. People will understand, if it's explained; otherwise they will be totally confused.

I wonder how this can/should be done? HQ needs to get on top of this ASAP, IMO.


Umm, I think this is pretty succinct and to the point....

If I remember correctly, he puts in earmarks to benefit those in his district, then votes against the bill. He'd prefer no spending increases at all, but if it passes anyway, then at least his constituents get something for their tax dollars.

Mike at 12:42AM on Jun 30th 2007

And, more importantly, also correct.

[LibertyEagle]

Umm, I think this is pretty succinct and to the point....

If I remember correctly, he puts in earmarks to benefit those in his district, then votes against the bill. He'd prefer no spending increases at all, but if it passes anyway, then at least his constituents get something for their tax dollars.

Mike at 12:42AM on Jun 30th 2007

And, more importantly, also correct.

Yup, but is the general populace actually hearing this I wonder. That was my only concern.

[Kuldebar]

Yup, but is the general populace actually hearing this I wonder. That was my only concern.
I agree, that's the issue, but like everything else it's an uphill battle.

Here's what the AP quoted a Ron Paul Staffer as an answer:


Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district," Mr. Lizardo said.

However, Mr. Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor. So far this year he has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans and state-foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.

Many lawmakers feel they are better off requesting funding for specific projects in their districts rather than waiting for a bureaucratic agency to decide which project is funded. Mr. Paul agrees, Mr. Lizardo said. SOURCE LINK (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html)

So, there's actually an official answer out there, we just may need to help connect the dots for some people that aren't diligent enough to think, err find out for themselves. :p


Also, Ron Paul's recent article on the subject:

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html)