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,

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

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").

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.

Leading up to the election, Paul was adamant about killing pork-barrel spending, says Veronique de Rugy in National Review. So I'm taken aback by how quickly he's "selling out." Even if you look at his comments charitably, he's still promising to send federal money back home "to buy state and local goodies," which is hardly "in line with my dream of going back to true fiscal federalism."

Originally posted by filosophia
www.prisonplanet.com...

This is what the article said

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.

And here is what he actually said

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.

So do you expect an apology or just the usually smear tactics?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
ATS Thread talking about the edited statements attributed to Rand Paul

Originally posted by filosophia
www.prisonplanet.com...

This is what the article said

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.

And here is what he actually said

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.

So do you expect an apology or just the usually smear tactics?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by maybereal11

---

Correct... He is saying that the manner in which earmarks are given is what is causing the problem.
He has no issues with them if they are done in a manner where the funding already exists, and it is deficit neutral. In other words the way earmarks are done, and have always been done - Dole it out without knowing if its there or not.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Latching into something he said in an effort to spin it into something else is getting old. The interview, that has been linked by several other members, go into detail in regards to his remarks, where he clarifies his position.

Earmarks with a process and available funds that do not create a deficit = acceptable and in line with what the Government is suppose to be doing.

This is not a hard concept to understand.