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

I guess in the end the apple doesn't fall far from the tree:

Rand Paul, who is running to replace Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), said this month, “I don’t accept the proposition that earmarks are the only way to have money for your community. ... Earmarks represent a lot of what is broken in the system.”

Rep. Paul, who has defied his GOP leaders by submitting more than 40 earmark requests this year, is scheduled to address the Tea Party rally. The House Republican Conference recently voted not to secure earmarks in 2010, but Paul and Reps. Joseph Cao (R-La.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) are seeking money for earmark projects.

thehill.com...

Those of you trying to figure out a way to rationalize and excuse it simply fail. Probably why all the usual RP family groupies are absent from this thread. How many times does this have to happen, how many times do politicians have to betray you before the chad on your ballot has even hit the ground for everyone to understand that they are all the same? Hard to fathom there are people so naive that they still believe campaign promises.

reply to post by hawkiye


They are still hypocrites.

I laugh and weep at the same time at the audacity of Tea Party supporters to justify this crap.

Tea Party = GOP

"Candidate" Rand Paul also signed the "No Pork Pledge" by Citizens United Against Government Waste.

His campaign often touted this fact.

Where he pledged not to ask for earmarks.

www.cagw.org...

dp

reply to post by wisintel


Ok, so when a Tea Party-backed candidate is called out on their hypocrisy, it's a "hit piece"?

God, the sorry state of affairs that is American politics.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by hawkiye

 

They are still hypocrites.

I laugh and weep at the same time at the audacity of Tea Party supporters to justify this crap.

Tea Party = GOP

Before you equate TPM with GOP, show me where TPM advocated earmarks.

He is an ordinary Republican corporate conservative just like all the tea party people.
No surprise here.

He and those like him will merely sell out the American people to corporate interests that own him and the rest of the tea party republican conservatives. They will lead us to neo-serfdom and the complete destruction of the middle class

I think congress should earmark ALL spending. (Boy that would dissuade them from spending if they had to account for every dollar). Not doing so means that the executive branch, through discretionary spending, can use that money on more 'defense', more empire building, and more economic distortion.

Much of this money is spent without ever being accounted for at any level. Earmarking EVERYTHING we are going to spend money on in budget sessions would probably force more discipline into congress as they would have to explain to their Constituency why they need a $4000 toilet seat.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'll vote for that!

What happened to "line item?" Wasn't that part of someone else's campaign in 2008?

Anyhow, I entirely agree. Since earmarks can't entirely go away, why not embrace them and make them the norm? No dollar gets budgeted or spent without having a specific purpose and a manner in which to track its efficacy? From one budget to the next we wipe out the dollars that are not having positive effects, and we earmark them to some other project.

Put up the petition Vxn and I'll sign it!

reply to post by getreadyalready


This has been Ron Paul's position on earmarking forever. He also uses it as a tool to return money to his constituency. If Rand had bothered to understand this position we wouldn't be having this discussion.

reply to post by mishigas


I don't have to.

I can show you Rand Paul, a TPM-backed candidate that flip-flopped on earmarks.

I'm sure his supporters are upset. Oh wait a minute. YEAH RIGHT!

It's bad enough that Kentucky is out there spending my tax dollars and now they elect a buffoon like Rand Paul?

I'm sure that Rand can deliver his constituents $4000 toilet seats.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I think congress should earmark ALL spending. (Boy that would dissuade them from spending if they had to account for every dollar).

Good for a chuckle..but the other side of that coin...earmarks are not up for debate, they are attached at the tail end of a bill or in committee...no debate...no public scrutiny...no senate or congressional approval. What you are proposing is free for all in horse trading/bribery without any debate or discussion. The opposite of democracy IMO.

reply to post by maybereal11


It's a free for all now.

So the question is, when we write up a balanced budget amendment, should that also include a ban on any item not debated by the House and Senate in General? I don't think that would be a bad idea.

reply to post by The Sword


I am a huge Tea Party supporter, and I was never much of a Rand Paul supporter, and I certainly am not one now. I am not in his district, so my opinion doesn't really matter though.

I was also not a Steve Southerland supporter, he is the GOP candidate that got elected in my town. The Tea Party candidate was Paul McKain, but he wasn't even a contender. I also wasn't a Charlie Crist supporter, although he switched to Independent hoping to pick up the Tea Party support and instead he got landslided by the GOP candidate Marco Rubio that did have Tea Party support, and is a likely presidential contender for 2012.

Anyhow, don't lump all Tea Partiers into GOP or support of any one candidate. The beauty of it is that we can support whatever INDIVIDUAL we feel will serve us, instead of voting for a Party.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

This has been Ron Paul's position on earmarking forever. He also uses it as a tool to return money to his constituency. If Rand had bothered to understand this position we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Here is an article from the campaign season where Rand Paul distinguishes himself from his father on the issue of earmarks..

I think Rand understood his father's position...but it wasn't politically convenient for him, so he chose to BS instead to garner TP support. Thus now the Flip after he is elected.

Rand Paul even signed the Citizens United Pledge to not ask for Earmarks...and he has now clearly stated he will do exactly that. His word is worthless.

Mark Meckler, a leader in the Tea Party movement, predicts that many candidates asking for earmarks are going to be shunned this election year.


“Anybody out there who is requesting earmarks … is going to be hung around their neck come the November elections and primaries because people know about it, they are going to talk about it, it is going to affect how people vote. It’s one of the fundamental things people are looking at when they are looking at reform — they are looking at people running for Congress who know that their job is not simply to bring home the bacon,” Meckler said.


Ron Paul attracted several Tea Party primary challengers, but he easily beat them in the March 2 primary.


Even though they share some of the same donors, Meckler predicted that activists in the Tea Party are savvy enough to discern between father and son.


“People in the Tea Party movement are politically mature enough to separate father from son, so I don’t think Ron Paul’s position on requesting earmarks will affect his son’s support,” Meckler said.


Rand Paul’s campaign manager, David Adams, points to his boss’s position on pork-barrel spending on the candidate’s website.


“Rand Paul appreciates Republican Sen. Jim DeMint [S.C.] introducing … a one-year ban on earmark spending and a balanced-budget amendment.


Rand strongly supports both initiatives and has made them centerpieces of his campaign for limited government, including his signing of the Citizens Against Government Waste ‘No pork pledge.’ ”

thehill.com...

The stupidity in this thread is monumental. How many pay income taxes but don't approve of them? if one does not approve of them by the logic of those making a big deal of this then they should not use the income tax system to get their refunds as that would be compromising thier stance in not approving of income taxes... It's ridiculous!

That is essentially the Paul's stance on earmarks The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system. it is really that simple those making a big deal out of it are either too mentally challenged to understand this or trolls.


And to the trolls I am not a tea party member I did not vote in the corporate elections or participate in the corporate de facto system of politics so save the rhetoric...

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by maybereal11

 

It's a free for all now.

So the question is, when we write up a balanced budget amendment, should that also include a ban on any item not debated by the House and Senate in General?

Sure...but then we aren't talking earmarks anymore and you have come full circle to normal legislation with the caveat that each penny must be specifically directed and accounted for in the bill..(ex: $2,987,452.11 cents for highway X) I'd go for that...Earmarks however? No debate..bribes for powerful politicians.

Originally posted by maybereal11
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...

Its clear that he used the TP if this is the case. This is not what the TP wants among the rank and file.

See now hes calling it "advocating" for kentucky. But yea if all this is as it seems to be hes a pile of sh#t.

reply to post by maybereal11


An Amendment like that would ban the earmark process.

They would have to balance the budget, the whole budget. And they wouldn't be able to add crap to a bill in committee without being debated by the whole of the House and Senate.

I think you're right. I think it would probably be better to tie their hands altogether.

Originally posted by hawkiye

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system.

Playing the system is indeed a sound argument for politicians and prostitutes alike.