Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul flips on Earmarks before he is even sworn in !

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Revealed: Rand Paul reverses on core campaign pledge before even taking office


www.rawstory.com...



Rand Paul, the next Republican US senator from Kentucky, has done an about-face on earmarks even before taking office.

In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal, Paul signaled a major backtrack on a core campaign promise: cutting federal earmarks.


Flip-flopping Rand Paul now supports earmarks


shar.es...



From senate candidate Rand Paul's website:

Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign ...

“The Tea Party movement is an effort to get government under control,” Rand said. “I’m running to represent Kentuckians and to dismantle the culture of professional politicians in Washington. Leadership isn’t photo-ops with oversized fake cardboard checks. That kind of thinking is bankrupting our nation.

And today, Senator-elect Rand Paul:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.

So as long as the (so-called) "bankrupting [of] our nation" is transparent, Rand Paul is down with it.



+16 more 
posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Well here we go...

Everyone waiting to see what difference the new Tea Party folks will do in DC...wait for it...nothing.

This plus the GOP explaing today that they are adopting a full steam ahead policy for the Military and plan on opposing any plans for a withdrawl from Afghanistan from Pres. Obama....want a more aggressive policy toward Iran etc.
www.npr.org...

The Tea Party has arrived and it is the same as it ever was...



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Rand Paul was likely influenced by two factors on the earmarks. Firstly by his father Ron Paul who does push for earmarks to his district. Secondly, by his desire to change his job so that in most part he is "working for the best interests of Kentucky" which was a criticism that was mildly successfully held against him during the campaign. I can't really hold him against doing what people in his voting district are wanting him to do when there is nothing blatantly wrong with the change. Contrary to what was reported by the press, Paul never held earmark spending as central to his campaign. He only mentioned earmarks once or twice. As far as I know he never promised to vote no to all earmarks.

The reason neither of the Pauls (Ron or Rand) have chosen to cave on the issue is that earmarks delegate out money that is already due to be spent, meaning if it was not spent in their district it would be re-routed elsewhere. While only arguably compromises their hard-line stance against increases of government spending. It does make sense on some level after hearing their explanation.

Basically, earmarks are a minor issue in the scheme of things. If Rand Paul really does change his tune in office on any major issues then I'll be the first to call him out for it. Not yet and maybe not at all has Rand Paul disappointed.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I am almost certain his comments had to be somewhat taken out context. I imagine the overall conversation and question was along the lines of questioning how he would still be an advocate for Kentucky and getting Federal money for Kentucky's needs while being anti-earmarking.... He said of course he would still advocate within the system for Kentucky and they blew everything out of proportion and sensationalized it. This wouldn't be the first time the media has tried to twist Rand's words and use them against him.
edit on 9-11-2010 by wisintel because: spelling



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Contrary to what was reported by the press, Paul never held earmark spending as central to his campaign. He only mentioned earmarks once or twice. As far as I know he never promised to vote no to all earmarks.


By the Press??? Not Central to his Campaign??

Here...let me quote Rand Paul's Campaign website
Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign.
www.randpaul2010.com...

It's right there on his website...first sentence! He flipped so fast he hasn't even had time to change it yet.

Save me the "contrary to what the press reported" BS.


+8 more 
posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
This is not a flip flop at all. Both Him and his father are against earmarks, however as long as they are in place they will get their states share because it is tax payers money and it goes back to them at least in some form. if they do not take the earmarks then the Administration gets to do what the want with them and spend them on thier social programs or give to their cronies. So it is best for them to take thier states share of those earmarks back to the tax payers they were stolen from until the whole earmark system can be ended.

Kind of like income taxes you may be against it but you damn sure try to get your refund every year because it would be foolish not to because you are against income tax in the first place.
edit on 9-11-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
I almost certain his comments had to be somewhat taken out context.


Here he is as quoted by the Wall Street Journal..not Huffpost etc.


Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.


online.wsj.com...


I understand it hurts a little...but look at his website pledge...look at what he just said to the WSJ.

He has flipped.

On a side note...all of you that thought he would audit the Fed? That is off the table as well..see quote above.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is not a flip flop at all. Both Him and his father are against earmarks, however as long as they are in place they will get their states share


Again...nice try...but here he is being asked EXACTLY THAT on "ABC this week"


AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No.


abcnews.go.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


The only thing in that whole convoluted statement in quotations was, "I will fight for the interests of Kentucky".... Of course he will... he is the Senator for Kentucky. All the other words in that paragraph are from the reporter.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is not a flip flop at all. Both Him and his father are against earmarks, however as long as they are in place they will get their states share


Again...nice try...but here he is being asked EXACTLY THAT on "ABC this week"


AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No.


abcnews.go.com...


Perhaps reading comprehension lessons are in order for you.... As I said IOW The Paul's have both consistently stated they are against the earmark system and would end them if they could. However AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN PLACE they will take the share of them stolen from thier state back to thier state. What part of that do you not understand? There is nothing incompatible with what they are saying and doing. It makes perfectly logical sense. There is no flip flop this is a non starter just like it was in Ron Paul 2008 campaign and Rand's recent campaign... Sigh!



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I hate to see this. It is so typical. When it's the other guy it's,"earmarks are terrible waste of money". When they get in and they need to do something for their constiuents it's, "earmarks aren't so bad, the money's spent anyway". Give me a break. Hypocrisy at it's finest and you people that voted them in. Ya got took! Gotcha!!



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
In this recent video with Fox Business, Ron Paul says he and Rand will be introducing an End the Fed bill as soon as Rand get sworn in.... So that puts another lie to the hit piece that spawned this thread.




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Looks like Rand got caught up in the politics of the day.

If he had explained earmarks like his father did we wouldn't be having this discussion.


What an idiot.


People are welcome to change their minds. But one has to explain why.

I support Rand, but consistency is key.
edit on 9-11-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   


earmarks are not a bad thing, a lack of earmarks is a bad thing b/c then gov spends without limitation. This is a case of earmarks = bad thing cause it's a buzz word



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
"New boss same as the old boss" and "Same poop different day"... undoubtedly euphemisms motivated by DC politicians proclivity for chronic deception & stale never ending sameness.

Is there anyone who still believes either party has virtue enough to stick to their "campaign promises"?.. lol

Campaign promises are part of "dog whistle" politics.. carefully scripted 1/2 truths, blatant mouth poop, and other assorted inflated lies twisted into lofty promises..that polled well.

A PR firm, publicist, and troop of lackey adviser bottom feeders hoping for a govt job, engineer their fecal matter into talking point song.. intended to resonate on the specific "left / right" frequency their typical empty vessel party loyalists tune into most.

Works like a charm every time too.. election after election.. party loyalists gather with their flock to hear dear party leader de jure sing talking point goodness.. knowing deep inside it's all BS, they clap in denial anyway and drool like Pavlov's Dog at the tasty illusion of "change" their new leader promises to bring.. lol



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
In this recent video with Fox Business, Ron Paul says he and Rand will be introducing an End the Fed bill as soon as Rand get sworn in.... So that puts another lie to the hit piece that spawned this thread.


He won't be "ending the fed" as he explained in the interview...and this interview that you termed a "hit piece" was by the Conservative Wall Street Journal.

Even the Weekly Standard (Conservative Journal) is taking Rand to task on this.

For folks not believing this is true...google around and research some. I don't want to provide dozens of links here.

It is also notable that despite this being all over the news, Rand has not emerged to deny it.
edit on 9-11-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Not so surprising at all.

Should have elected Ru Paul. Now there's someone who would get stuff done without compromising their integrity.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is not a flip flop at all. Both Him and his father are against earmarks, however as long as they are in place they will get their states share


Again...nice try...but here he is being asked EXACTLY THAT on "ABC this week"


AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No.


abcnews.go.com...


Perhaps reading comprehension lessons are in order for you.... As I said IOW The Paul's have both consistently stated they are against the earmark system and would end them if they could. However AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN PLACE they will take the share of them stolen from thier state back to thier state. What part of that do you not understand?


Help me out here...Are you saying that he shouted "No more earmarks! They are ruining our government and I will ban them!!!"...but the smallprint was..."I will ask for earmarks every chance I get and I am not really serious about banning them."

Is that what his campaign pledge was? Because I missed that small print in his campaign rhetoric, his interviews and his website pledge...maybe he just forgot to include the small print...???

Maybe you could direct me to where he explained this during the campaign...cuz I folowed it closely and don't remember him ever saying anything of the sort. Actually just the opposite.


AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No.


abcnews.go.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Further from the Wall Street Journal..



In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.

His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that's all the money we have. Instead they just say, 'What do you want to spend?' It's all about what do you want instead of what do you have.



Apparently Rand is for "soft earmarks"



Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").




An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system. [10]

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public.

Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks.

Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise might not vote for.


Both from Wikipedia..

See what I underlined above and then see this...It might explain why Rand is flipping, his buddy from KY is going to head appropriations..




The senior member of Kentucky's Congressional delegation stands a good chance of gaining even more clout.

Republican U.S. Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers said Friday that he has a majority of votes on a key panel to become the next chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee if the GOP wins enough seats on Tuesday to take control of the chamber.


Read more: www.kentucky.com...

Ahhhh...politics!



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Well I have never agreed that all earmarks were a bad thing. Earmarks are exactly why people elect representatives to go to DC and fight for their locality. Earmarks are necessary.

On the other hand, I HATE flip-flopping. That is the number one thing a politician can do wrong in my opinion. If you get voted in on certain promises, stick to them, no matter what. I think it was a stupid campaign promise to begin with, but show some morality, show some tenacity, show some fortitude. Stick to your promises, or get the hell out!

I was never too sure about Rand Paul, he got elected on Ron Paul's name, and not a lot more.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join