Ron Paul Loves Earmarks

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Ron Paul one of only four House Republicans to request earmarks for 2011 budget




U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel. For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing


washingtonindependent.com...

Isn't it ironic...don't ya think?

Mr. Paul says, cut spending!!!

Just ignore his insatiable appetite for earmarks though.

Ron Paul loves earmarks!




The anti-tax crusader, who favors the abolition of the IRS and the FBI, went on to say that he actually supports earmarking all federal appropriations because spending power should be vested in the legislative, not executive, branch.

"We should earmark more. We should earmark every penny!" he shouted (though we can never tell with him). "That's the responsibility of the Congress."


www.politico.com...

So his excuse is that it's ok for Congress to deficit spend...just a tad bit contradictory hmmm???? Defict spending is deficit spending however you want you look at it.
edit on 22-7-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Dr Paul's explanation from your own article:


I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood. Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.


I realize that it makes sense to omit this if you're trying to sway minds - but your OP is slanted and unfair. Congressman Ron Paul requested earmarks to appropriately allocate funds should the funding pass, then he voted against spending that money at all. Does this make sense or should I get out the crayons and write up some graphs?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I think that you misunderstand the entire proces of earmarking appopriations. Earmarking has nothoing to do with actually spending the money.


While Paul requested these earmarks, he can still claim to have voted against the spending. Here’s how he defended his earmarking habit when he was challenged during a Fox News interview in 2009:


Ron Paul:

I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.


Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.


So there is a dference between earmarking items and pork barrel spending.
edit on 22-7-2011 by robyn because: add annotation



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
His view on this has always made perfect sense to me. If the money is to be spent, congress should decide how its divided.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Backslider
Dr Paul's explanation from your own article:


I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood. Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.


I realize that it makes sense to omit this if you're trying to sway minds - but your OP is slanted and unfair. Congressman Ron Paul requested earmarks to appropriately allocate funds should the funding pass, then he voted against spending that money at all. Does this make sense or should I get out the crayons and write up some graphs?


Im personally lost on this stuff, so if you have to pull out the crayolas for me to understand, than please do so. I wont be offended , but just happy to understand.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by showintail
 


An Appropriation Bill is authorization from Congress for the government to spend money on discretionary programs. They are appropriating the funds. An earmark (or 500 earmarks) is/are written into the bill to designate where specifically those funds will go. Congress might appropriate a specific amount of money for discretionary funds - All an earmark is is language in the bill designating where, specifically, those funds should go.

If the bill passes in the house it still has to go through the Senate, where it could be altered and amended or agreed upon fully. The Senate might also draft their own bill entirely, and attempt to merge it with the House bill.

The so called GOP moratorium on earmarks is nothing but political games. Earmarks aren't inherently the bad word we're all supposed to think they are, they are merely Congress specifically appropriating funds.

Ron Paul I believe has never voted to appropriate funds for discretionary spending.. So when he adds earmarks and then votes against a bill, he is essentially hedging his bets and making sure should the bill pass, despite the fact that he doesn't believe it should on principal, those funds will be reserved in the legislation for uses that the bill was originally designed for.

ETA: So Ron Paul adds earmarks to a bill to ensure money is being spent appropriately, then he votes against spending that federal money AT ALL. This OP and the articles provided are trying to spin this process so Ron Paul looks like a hypocrite and they do a good job of it considering most people are not familiar with this process. These actions by Ron Paul align 100% with who he is and what he stands for.

edit on 23-7-2011 by Backslider because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics
 
6

log in

join