Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Paul had apparently requested over $400 million worth of earmarks this year including $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. And his excuse is the exact same as every pork barrel spender in Congress.

He seems to have explained his motives right there in the link.

Even if you don't like how something is done, if it still needs doing, and you've been charged with the duty to do it, you don't have a lot of choices.

He ain't President yet, just a congressman like so many others.

So I suppose it's wrong for me to cash a tax refund check I get from the government? After all, that tax money is simply going back to the people from which the feds took it from.

I'm not really seeing a problem with it.

I see it as being similar to what I tried to do when I was applying to college. I was opposed to Hispanics receiving federal aid, but I still tried to cash in on it cause the money was availible. It's possible for Paul to be opposed to federal earmarks but still try to use the system to benefit the people he represents. Also, he didn't even vote for the bills those earmarks were in, soooo take that as you will.

Any reason Hispanics in particular?

I mean, I assume you are Hispanic yourself...???

Just wondering.

No, I'm not Hispanic. My father emmigrated from Spain. But I thought that might be close enough to get some cash.

But it's not going back to the people who paid it. It's going back to the district for special interest projects. That's $1700 per household. Do you think the people in the 14th would rather have their money back or a shrimp awareness program?

Well, Paul's sly, I'll give you that.

And while they're all liars, he did bring up a very good point: he represents his people, not the rest of the country.

I don't know about you people, but I am pretty aware of shrimp myself...

Of course they'd love that money.

Do you think that Congress would ever give it to them though?

If there is no problem with it, then there is no problem with ANY earmarks.

AT ALL.



You can't have it both ways. either the FedGov spends moneny where money is actually, you know, NEEDED for FedGov responsibilities, or it sends it where the congressional votes/favors/backscratching can direct it.

which does Paul favor?

IF he as a poor district, one in ACTUAL need, then that district might should get more than it sends in....if he has a rich district which is doing well, maybe less.

But in either case, the FedGov should never spend money except on that which is - in Paul's very accurate view - the FedGov's responsibility.

So if he gets earmarks for roads and bridges and coast management, bully for him....maybe that's a "common good" thing that even libertarians can cede to the FedGov.

BUT if he's getting earmarks for bullshit that any libertarian would CALL bullshit if it were in another district merely under the heading of "getting our cut" then, I'm sorry, that's rank hypocrisy.

That's not to say i don't think ALL politicians are hypocrites to some extent, but at least we can stick a pin in the "except Ron Paul" clause that's often attached.

Again, I say all this IF - IF - he's getting earmarks for things that are not FedGov responsibilities....things he would call bullshit on if they were in Nancy Pelosi's district.



But the bottom line is simple - if you object to earmarks for anyone, you object to earmarks for everyone....this "just playing the game" baloney does not absolve anyone from guilt.

Even the guy who SAYS all the right things.

Which would they rather have, a check for 1700 dollars once or a job leading out of a Federal Program?

I think we're all missing the critical point, that being that he DID NOT VOTE FOR THE BILL WITH THOSE EARMARKS.

Which the usual suspects would paint as "he was for shrimp awareness before he was against it", if it weren't Ron Paul.

Honestly, how does it serve the people and the shrimp he represents if he is going to get the earmarks on the bill, and then not vote for it? He supports their wishes for fed money, but not really? He doesn't support those wishes, but he does a little bit?

Here is a list of members of Congress and their votes on earmarks.

The guy representing my district (Rick Renzi R-AZ District 1) has a 0% score---he voted against all 19 amendments that attempted to kill specific earmarks.

There were 21 members of Congress who voted against all 19 of the anti-earmark amendments. This is an older list---it shows JD Hayworth and he was voted out of office in 2006.

I see it as this: He knows the bill wil probably pass, regardless of his opposition to it. Knowing that, it would be unfair to his constituents to deny them the same federal aid that everyone else would be receiving.

I guess Ron Paul is no longer a fringe candidate who has "no chance to win". We're starting to see more and more of the standard "hit pieces" that all the "mainstream" candidates get. Even the New York Times is attacking Paul. Obviously, the mainstream media types are starting to get very worried about him.

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Dr. Paul!

Tch, I was hoping for something juicy, like he was snorting blow out of a hooker's snoosh or something.

Lame.

So it's okay to insert pork into a bill that will surely pass as long as you don't actually vote for it?

To be clear, this would not cause me not to support him.I expect that any politician has made this sort of compromise. i just don't think it should be poo-pooed simply because it's one of the good guys who did it. Even the best of them are compromised - such is the world we live in.

Exactly what I was thinking. He's officially arrived.

Correction: Hayworth voted FOR all 19, not against.

My faith is restored! He always was one of my favorites and a pox on the morons who voted him out.

Paul was 19 for 19.

Pence, another of my favorites and the guy who should have been Republican leader after Hastert, was also perfect.

Credit where due, Harold Ford was 13 of 19 which is good for a Democrat.

My own congressman was 0 for 19 and so was Chip Pickering, the two leading candidates to take up our Senate positions next (in the fine tradition of Trent Lott )

Sigh.

THIS is why I'm so cynical about politics.

I hated Hayworth when he was a sports news guy for Channel 10 news in Phoenix

Arizona was all-or-nothing in this one.

Four guys (Flake, Hayworth, Franks, Shadegg) voted to kill all of the earmarks.

The other four (Renzi, Pastor, Kolbe, Grijalva) voted to keep all of the earmarks.

Hooker Snoosh? Didn't they open up for Lynyrd Skynyrd in '73?



Anyway, let's be honest, nobody could defeat a politician advocating snorting snoosh blow.

"I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."

Yes.

Because if you can't kill it despite your best efforts, you might as well take some of that money back to the people you represent.

If he hadn't voted against the bill, I'd feel a whole heck of a lot differently about it, but honestly, what he did is exactly what I'd do in that situation.

^You're avoiding the question.