Ron Paul on Earmarks

Paul explains why he'll earmark bills or vote for tax credits even though he doesn't believe Congress should do either. From the Robert Taft Club, October 11, 2007.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ron
• Paul
• 2008
• Taft
• Club
• earmarks

[Neoamore]

Well, if "earmarks" are the worst anyone can say about Ron Paul, he's got my vote.

[gregor5434]

Ron Paul HATES taxes, but if his people are being taxed anyways, the least he can do is try and give them some money back. Besides earmarks do not increase spending, it just allocates it.

[blackjack6625]

@AtheistDaddy

Atheist, what don't you get? He is against the earmark process all together, but since he is in the minority and knows that the bill will get accepted anyways, he tries to get back as much of his districts money as possible! so voting for the bills=bad, bills will get passed anyways, earmark to get as much of our money back so people that earmark as a sport dont get it...I see no problem there.

[granolanutpunch]

@AtheistDaddy It just amazes me whenever earmarks come up as an attack against ANY politician when total annual earmark expenditures are 4% of what we spend on the military each year.

[AtheistDaddy]

@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.

Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.

[AtheistDaddy]

@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.

Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.

[AtheistDaddy]

@granolanutpunch Of course I vote. I only discuss earmarks here because that is the topic of this video. There are a myriad of reasons why I would not vote for Dr. Paul. His earmark chicanery among them.

I too am against the NDAA (and support military cuts) but a vote for Paul would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[granolanutpunch]

@AtheistDaddy While not the best way to protest govt. spending, if the executive branch has already made the decision to throw $10 billion dollars of taxpayer cash into the air for congress to fight over, It's pretty hard to blame the guy for grabbing as much as he can for his district.

[granolanutpunch]

@AtheistDaddy So I take it you're just never going to vote since there's never been a completely perfect politician to run for any office?

Someones going to get elected and while I would love for that person to be flawless, reality sets in at a certain point.

I'd rather see a man who's against the NDAA (Obama's unforgivable sin) TARP and other bailouts, and who has the balls to talk to the republicans about industrial hemp and cutting military spending.

[AtheistDaddy]

@granolanutpunch Neither. The dilemma, pointed out in this video, is that Dr. Paul says one thing and does another. His self-righteous rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric. He is wrong on several fronts. However, this video talks about his earmarks strategy. This strategy I find to be dishonest. If you place requests on spending then vote against the bill yet know it will pass you are taking absolutely no risk.Paul can trumpet his record of NO while those who vote for him get paid.

[granolanutpunch]

@AtheistDaddy So who would you rather have become king of the janitors? The guy who asks for the best mop in case he ends up with one but does everything he can to prevent the company from buying unneeded mops for anyone. Or, the guy with friends at the baby cranked mop company who's always coming up with new and shady ways to funnel more baby cranked mops into the budget while claiming to be a christian conservative?

[AtheistDaddy]

@granolanutpunch For your analogy to hold true we need more actions from said janitor.

1. The Janitor must claim mops (of any sort) are unconstitutional and cause the downfall of the company he works for.

2. The Janitor must personally write expenditures for mops into the companies budget.

3. He must then vote against the budget he helped write.

4. He must then go on TV/Web/Radio claiming a victory for liberty and point out he never voted for spending money on mops!

NO on mops!