Ron Paul Promises to Cut Government Spending
The last hope for the Republic, Ron Paul, is a fiscally conservative senator from Texas who rails against big government and government spending.
Ron Paul's supporters "love" his championing of the Constitution in this regard. Limited government. Lower taxes. More Freedom.
But is Ron Paul really for less government spending? The proof in the pudding is always pork projects for the local constituency. That's the way politicians buy votes, right? Shouldn't Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, be against pork barrel spending.
As they say on TV, let's go to the tape. (local PDF link - link to original version). Can someone please remind me, which article of the Constitution allows for "Brazoria County Shore Protection", "Cancer Center Expansion" "Chocolate Bayou" among other pork projects, many of which just -happen- to be in his local district. Very puzzling.
The Champion of the Constitution, indeed. Sure, come and say that he's just working within the system and that when he's elected he'll change things. Then, in the next breath tell me that he doesn't pass many bills because he can't get people to agree with him - because he's such a rigid supporter of constitutional ethics. Uh huh.
Ron Paul. The last hope. The best hope. For the Republic. Take the Red Pill. Ron Paul.
(H/T: Ace)
June 29th, 2007 - 15:16
Firstly, what is an earmark?
An earmark, in politico speak, is the practice of directing money from a spending bill in congress, instead of waiting for the apporpriate executive branch dept. to do it.
As such, it does not increase the size of the bill. For example, if FEMA is going to get $50 million for hurricane mitigation (seawalls, barrier sandbars, etc.) an eramark would be to set aside $25,000 for Brazoria county.
THIS DOES NOT INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE FINAL BILL
Secondly, Ron Paul always votes against the final spending bill.
Ron Paul hedging his bets? You Betcha!
Hypocracy? Hardly.
June 29th, 2007 - 15:25
Secondly, Ron Paul always votes against the final spending bill.
He does? Here is just one vote on a final spending bill. Paul voted yes.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2215&can_id=296
Here are others:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=10&go.x=11&go.y=1
Ron Paul hedging his bets? You Betcha!
So you support Ron Paul redirecting funds from one government mis-expenditure to another and justify it as “hedging his bets”. That’s great!
And you should be wanting Paul to support, if you are honest, reduced government spending not shoving papers around the desk.
June 29th, 2007 - 15:25
Have seen posts of his “pork” before and the examples given sounded like worth while projects. Not like the ” bridge to nowhere ” . I am curious how many of these bills actually passed ?
June 29th, 2007 - 15:30
The budgets get passed every year or so.
The champion of the constitution should not be supporting pork projects at all, no matter how “worth while” they are.
Pork spending for your local constituents is not a function of the federal government.
June 29th, 2007 - 15:36
Earmarks direct new spending, they don’t create it. They are a means for a congressman to direct funds to a specific project while avoiding bureacracy. Paul is just ensuring that if a new spending bill passes, his district is not excluded. Yet he votes against such bills.
He consistantly advocates much lower spending and taxation levels. From his own website:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
June 29th, 2007 - 15:40
if a new spending bill passes, his district is not excluded.
Keep justifying pork spending. Everyone in congress does it. Even the champion of the constitution apparently. Sad, the guy who champions the constitution doesn’t even uphold its principles.
June 29th, 2007 - 16:02
Yes he voted for a balanced budget that did not raise taxes in 2000. He is one man, and presses the cause of smaller, constitutional government in congress more than any other, as you surely know.
I await your focused diatribe against each and every other representative. I Can’t wait for the invective you must have lined up for them.
June 29th, 2007 - 17:32
Can anyone name a better Representative or Senator in regards to spending? I can’t. I can’t even think of a mayor or governor that is better fiscally.
June 29th, 2007 - 21:35
The only other candidate that comes close in my opinion is Mike Gravel most of the others are members of the CFR. But is pork really what we should be worrying about ? Some say our military is stretched to it’s limits yet our government taunts Iran. I’ve read a few articles concerning reinstating the draft. Do we really want to go down that path again?
July 11th, 2007 - 22:31
so, when the congress introduces a bill to tax the hell out of the nation, and every congressman tries to bring some of the tax money back to his district, and when ron paul attempts to give back his district it’s tax dollars, and votes against the whole bill, he is a hypocrite? Right. He has said himself on television that he opposes federal funding consistently, but makes sure his tax payers get their money back if it happens. This is exactly what i would do in his position, regardless of the impact on my popularity! For god’s sake, to not give the money back to my district would be to allow the rest of the nation to steal it from my district!