Smear Article in the Houston Chronicle

[Eric B]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4935311.html

WTF? I really can't believe this article. My gut tells me it's bogus but I don't know how to check it out. Can somebody please help with the facts? Because I'm certain they are not stated here.

"But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

Paul's zeal for government spending is hardly unique. "

Might want to comment there as well.

[Nash]

I've seen a number of smear articles of this like here is the deal:

1) Paul does file for these earmarks.
2) When the spending bill containing these earmarks goes to a vote he always votes no

His justification for doing this is that if the bill is going to pass he figures his district may as well get the funds. It's spent anyway.

Edit: I just re-read the article and it does mention the above. Paul doles the earmarks and then almost always votes against the spending bill.

[FSP-Rebel]

I've seen a number of smear articles of this like here is the deal:

1) Paul does file for these earmarks.
2) When the spending bill containing these earmarks goes to a vote he always votes no

His justification for doing this is that if the bill is going to pass he figures his district may as well get the funds. It's spent anyway.

Edit: I just re-read the article and it does mention the above. Paul doles the earmarks and then almost always votes against the spending bill.
Cool, so when the news agency doesn't have a leg to stand on, they just totally misrepresent something to the point of ridiculousness. I'm glad our colleges are pumping out such intelligent and creative journalists... Their brains are the size of lab rats.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I guess it's easy for them to misunderstand. There's not many out there, actually none, with Dr. Paul's honor and principles.

Let's just gather all the facts and send the Houston Chronicle what they need to read.

[bulloncoins]

this is the email I sent them (viewpoints@chron.com):

Does Mr. Roth even know who Ron Paul is?

The front page article, "Local GOP on the Hill push own spending wish
lists" by Bennett Roth was quite a piece of work. Mr. Roth would have
you confuse earmarks with pork spending, which is not surprising since
they often go hand in hand.

Earmarks are how a member of the House of Representatives "represents"
his constitutes.

These are not some big spending request drawn up on behalf of
corporate welfare or to enrich some favored cronies, these are the
request of the people whom Ron Paul serves in the 14th district of
Texas.

It is his responsibility to represent the request of his hard working,
taxpaying, constitutes. And that is all he is guilty of. Doing his
job, and doing it well.

Mr. Roth does acknowledge the fact that Dr. Paul often ends up voting
against those earmarks , when he begins the second paragraph of the
article with "But the congressman, who often votes against spending
bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston Area
delegation in the number of earmarks..."

Dr. Paul has often stated that he would rather the Federal Government
not take the money from the people in the first place. Then he would
not have to ask them to return it.

If Mr. Roth was doing his job of informing his readers, he would have
included Dr. Paul's voting record. That is what separates him from the
fake conservative crowd vying for the Republican nomination.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced
budget, never voted to raise congressional pay. He has repeatedly been
named the "Taxpayers' Best Friend" in Congress.

To write that Dr. Paul has "a zeal for government spending" shows that
Mr. Roth does not know the man at all. His whole career has been
dedicated to less government on the Federal level, and more power in
the hands of local and state governments.

Dr. Paul has just had the most successful rally of any candidate in
Iowa, with over 1000 in attendance. This piece came out of the
Washington Bureau the very next day. There was no mention of the
rally. Ron Paul must be doing something right.

Everyday more people wake up to the truth.

Travis Payne

[AMack]

Very good email. I think I may send one of my own...

[xen_caapn]

can someone clarify for me why he votes against earmarks he proposes? i'm confused:confused:

[FSP-Rebel]

can someone clarify for me why he votes against earmarks he proposes? i'm confused:confused:
You're mistaken, he doesn't vote in favor of them.

[Joe Knows]

can someone clarify for me why he votes against earmarks he proposes? i'm confused:confused:

Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

"I don't think they should take our money in the first place," he said. "But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."

The way it works in Paul's office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair "for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk."

But in the end, Paul said, he would likely vote against the spending bills even if they included earmarks he sought.

[Eric B]

I left my comment. It's really clear how that one was spun. Ticks me off.

[bulloncoins]

can someone clarify for me why he votes against earmarks he proposes? i'm confused:confused:


I would imagine in most cases it has to do with the bill it is attached to.

And the fact that he does not vote for a budget that is not balanced. He still has to represent the people of his district, and honor their request of how they would like to see their own tax dollars spent. But that is just it. A request by the constituents, not some big pork projects. They are not the same thing.

This is not him trying to move his own pet agenda as the author would make the reader believe. This is Dr. Paul respecting the will of the people who put him there as their representative to the beast we call the federal government.

He represents them regardless, and seperate from his own voting beliefs. He votes for the good of the whole country and based on the constitution.

It makes perfect sense to me now, and I understand a little better how hard it must be to be in those shoes. I think Dr. Paul does a wonderful job without compromising his integrity. Any other way would have the taxpayer being taxed without representation.

[Harald]

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html

even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because 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. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.

[IrrigatedPancake]

His justification for doing this is that if the bill is going to pass he figures his district may as well get the funds. It's spent anyway.

The only thing I would add to that is that I think he's said, while he does vote against most of those bills, he'd rather return money to his district since the federal government keeps taking it away.

[Lord Xar]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4935311.html

WTF? I really can't believe this article. My gut tells me it's bogus but I don't know how to check it out. Can somebody please help with the facts? Because I'm certain they are not stated here.

"But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

Paul's zeal for government spending is hardly unique. "

Might want to comment there as well.


hmmm. Well, I think that you should write to the writer AND the editor. This kind of thing needs an apology from them in their newspaper.

[GreyBlood]

This is all fartin' in to the wind guys. im sure these people already know about this stuff. and even if they did, they aren't going to admit it. but for the most part, Give 'Em Hell!!! :D

[Rabbit]

This is a non-issue, and if this is all they can come up with, RP is looking almost teflon-ish..