The esteemed representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul writes this on his Web site:
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours.
Hmmm. If that's the case, why is Rep. Paul asking for megabucks in earmarks for his district in Texas?
Read these requests (file in PDF) and note how vague they are and the lack of concrete numbers asked for. There are over a hundred requests for funding of various projects including "marketing wild American shrimp" to "construction" and "engineering services." The requests must be in the high millions or billions of dollars.
Paul seems to have adopted the "do as I say, not as I do" approach to governance so popular with the left. Perhaps Rep. Paul can forgo all earmarks to set a good example for the rest of Congress. He can be the anti-pork leader in the bloated legislature. Come on Rep. Paul, I challenge you to drop every single request for earmark funding and help us lower the debt. That seems to be your goal, but alas, I foresee you continuing your high-spending ways.
Hat tip: Ace, who is not nearly as nice as I've been.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)
1. Did he vote 'no' on the bills that his own pork was attached to?
Chris at 12:25AM on Jun 30th 2007
2. I would urge the writer of this article to correct himself. Scott is it? Dr. Paul has asked for earmarks for his district, true. But if you look a little more closely, Dr. Paul also voted against the budget proposal that included said earmarks. I guess Dr. Paul may be guilty of teasing his constituents, but he did not vote for the funding of these earmarks. Sorry Scott, Dr. Paul really is DR. NO. VOTE RON PAUL!!!!
Kyle Roberts at 12:32AM on Jun 30th 2007
3. If I remember correctly, he puts in earmarks to benefit those in his district, then votes against the bill. He'd prefer no spending increases at all, but if it passes anyway, then at least his constituents get something for their tax dollars.
Mike at 12:42AM on Jun 30th 2007
4. He's also one of the few that will actually tell you his earmarks. Let's see a comparative list of ALL the members before you go casting stones.
Rachel at 12:52AM on Jun 30th 2007
5. Earmarks is not what you think they are. Here is an article with an explanation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html.
Here is a short snippet from it
"... even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not save a single penny in the federal budget. ... 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.
Sergey at 1:05AM on Jun 30th 2007
6. Man, Ron Paul is sneaky. How did he get 18,500 YOUTUBE subscribers which is 10,000 more than the next closest presidential candidate, Barack Obama (who has around 8600). How did his website, www.RonPaul2008.com go from 8th. in March, to 5th. in April, and now 1st. in traffic out of all the traffic going to a Republican site? How did he become the most popular Republican candidate on Facebook, MySpace, and Eventful.com, and now he has the most Meetup.com groups of all candidates. Find out why people hate Ron Paul at www.IHateRonPaul.com - "...they hate us for our FREEDOM!"
Rudy G at 1:24AM on Jun 30th 2007
7. What a hack article. Pathetic. Are you too thick to understand what Paul is doing or are you misleading readers on purpose? He has a responsibility to return the money stolen from his district if the spending bills pass and has an oath to uphold that requires him to vote against the bills, which he does.
Awful "journalism."
Charles Wesley Fowler at 1:33AM on Jun 30th 2007
8. Seriously, if you can't find anything worse to say about Ron Paul than that he cares about his constituents, Ron Paul must be as great as everyone seems to be saying he is.
Where's the booze? Where's the sex? You come up with earmarks? Really? Earmrarks?
Nasain at 2:09AM on Jun 30th 2007
9. Vague?
The reason the amount was left blank, is because it is just a series of requests to the various subcommittees; asking them to please not forget this entity or that entity. In one case, a Sheriff's Dept. knew in advance the amount they would need.
Oooh! $25,000.00 My goodness that's a meaty chunk of budgetary scandal. :roll eyes: I call bull$#!+.
This isn't a bunch of amendments that would automatically become law should this bill be passed. The subcommittee is the one that will be making the actual decisions on whether to include funding for any of these.
And you can't even say that the subcommittee would be likely to approve these requests in order to guarantee Ron Paul's vote on the final spending bill. (not even with a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink')
Every member of Congress knows full well what Ron Paul's vote on this bill will be.
NO!
If the subcommittee felt that these requests were bad uses of the public's money, then the subcommittee would certainly be free to ignore them. If the subcommittee felt that these entities needed the funding that was being requested, then it would be up to the subcommittee to approve it, and in what amount.
I suppose, if you want to play ultra-pure-Libertarian-Übermensch fantasy politics, then you could say Ron Paul is a forked-tongued, thrice-damned, flaming, hypocrit. But Ron Paul isn't running for the nomination of the ultra-pure-Libertarian-Übermensch party.
Ron Paul is running for the nomination of the GOP. And as GOP politicians go, this is as pure as driven snow on an Antarctic glacier. Oh sure, you can find trace amounts of pollutants anywhere if you look hard enough and squint; but I'd drink it in a heart-beat over that industrial, over-processed $#!+ that comes out of a tap in New York City.
Sheesh! What a bunch of nothing. I am so glad that this is the worst you can come up with. It really enforces my overall good impression of Dr. Paul's honesty and integrity.
Laters
Kevin Houston at 2:19AM on Jun 30th 2007
10. Wow, you really opened my eyes. I never knew Ron Paul was like this. Oh my God!!!
I don't think so -- nice try! LOL!!!
Doug at 3:02AM on Jun 30th 2007
11. Er, what is he supposed to do, make sure the people of his district do not see the money that has already been confiscated from their earnings?
The fact that he votes against these spending bills should tell you the whole story. If the money is being taken, why shouldn't the people of Congressman Paul's district get some back?
But it seems that you are not interested in the whole story. ...
Garry at 4:04AM on Jun 30th 2007
12. Well Scotto boy, it looks like you are either uniformed or just lying to your readers. Which is it? It wouldn’t be fair for Dr Paul’s district to forfeit their earmarks when they pay unjustified taxes like the rest of the country. The reason there are so few congressmen that don’t request earmarks (I think there are two) is because those who don’t are not reelected come election because their constituents don’t feel fairly represented. I say good for Ron Paul, at least his earmarks are productive. Looks like Scotti needs to fine-tune his research skills a little.
Jeffery at 4:39AM on Jun 30th 2007
13. Vote Yes for Dr. No! This guy that wrote this story is a very deceptive journalist who doesnt like painting the whole picture to his audience..I guess thats what their paid for.
kyle at 5:45AM on Jun 30th 2007
14. Ron Paul has my vote! Feel free to earmark some funding for liberty. Go to https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Jonathan at 6:25AM on Jun 30th 2007
15. the cnn article i read said only a few of the 535 members of congress even released their requests, so obviously DR. Paul has nothing to hide.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/earmarks/index.html
you are not a very good reporter though, some of the requests did list actual amounts, the one for the CHILD system requested 25,000, compare that to my local representatives requests.
http://www.house.gov/cleaver/pdf/earmarks.pdf
also might want to take a look at the bills Dr. Pauls has sponsored- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery
just because you hate buying gas doesn't mean you can stop driving to work.
chad at 8:28AM on Jun 30th 2007