Ron Paul. Phake, Phony, Phraud!!

[ILOVEDNY]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ul-defend.html

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.

That's not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That's what Fox News is reporting.

In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Paul not only defended his own earmarks, he argued that every penny in the federal budget should be earmarked, to improve transparency.

Paul, a fiscal watchdog who said he voted against the bill because he believes federal spending is out of control, acknowledged that $73 million in the bill passed by his colleagues "might be" going to his district on Texas' Gulf Coast for things like the intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake. But he was fine with that, noting that he always votes for tax credits, not matter how "silly," to return money to the constituents who sent their tax dollars to Washington.

The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We're supposed to — it's like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven't voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. ...

I don't think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they're going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I'm their representative.

Today President Obama unveils an earmark reform bill of his own. Paul suggested that doing away with earmarks is a back-door way for the executive branch to gain power over the legislative branch.

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.... If you don't earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there's no transparency.

[Sock Puppet]

How dare he ask for for his district's money back.

[run4it]

How dare he ask for for his district's money back.

We dont' have a problem with that. The fact is though, he's a fraud saying that we should have as little government as possible, then going right ahead and feeding at the trough and perpetuating the machine, rather than making a 'principled' stand.

He's as much a politician as anyone else...he just cloaks himself in a faux-fur form of political self-righteousness.

[Sock Puppet]

When RP was running for the republican nomination, he was on meet the press and Russert confronted him on this very issue.

RP is for small government. This is a fact. If congress doesn't spend, the money goes to the executive branch for them to spend. If RP never had earmarks it would NOT decrease government spending. Not one red cent. So what he does is to try to get as much of his district's cash back into the hands of the people he represents as possible.

He also votes against the bills with his earmarks.

There is simply nothing fraudulent. Nothing.

[ILOVEDNY]

This is a fact. If congress doesn't spend, the money goes to the executive branch for them to spend. If RP never had earmarks it would NOT decrease government spending.

Actually.
If an earmark doesn't spend their allocated money, the rest is returned to the general fund.
If the earmark never existed.
No money is allocated and in fact would reduce spending.

[Jim Ostrowski]

What's your source? Your own expertise of budget procedures?

This is an old and boring story. We have answered it many times. Nothing there. Move along.

[Sock Puppet]

[Jim Ostrowski]

The day I ever get an answer to a question on a local wesbite.........

[Sock Puppet]

[Jim Ostrowski]

"No money is allocated and in fact would reduce spending."

Source please.

[ILOVEDNY]

"No money is allocated and in fact would reduce spending."

Source please.

Source is common sense Jim.
If a budget item aka earmark is never proposed.
It does not appear in the budget and therefor no monies are appropriated.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I knew you didn't have a source. You're full of it.

Common sense? Sure, if you had some expertise in the federal budget. But we don't even know who you are so that argument fails.

[Jim Ostrowski]

It really takes chutzpah to attack Ron Paul, who predicted every single thing that went wrong with the economy in the last eight months.

You should be apologizing for not voting for him.

[run4it]

Paul's mantra is that there should be drastically less government, drastically less government spending, period!

When he agitates for spending in his district, he is agitating for GOVERNMENT SPENDING, PERIOD!! There is no way around it.

I don't care about the sophistic justifications. I don't care about whether the money is 'earmarked' or block granted for various levels of government. Hell, I really don't care that he requests the money/projects at all. What I care about is that he's a fraud...he's as much a politician as any other DC pro out there....he's just hoodwinked some of you into believing he's the original political 'messiah.' Simply, you don't get to bitch about the how the machine needs to be torn down, then go ahead and put that machine to work for you.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Paul's view is subtle and based on a Jeffersonian view of government; the primacy of the legislative branch. You lack the ability to grasp his position. No one's fault but yours.