Thats why I can't help but lean to Mike Gravel. The guy has pulled us out of a fake war before, and he can do it again. I think any Ron Paul supporter has an obligation to atleast take a look at Mike Gravel.
I like Mike Gravel. I like Ron Paul.
But trying to smear Ron Paul with accusations of pork is like accusing Paris Hilton of chastity.
Micheal: Paul admits he participated in these pork projects. Why are Paul fanatics so unwilling to accept facts? There is no question that he sought earmarks for unconstitutional project. None.
Can't speak to the rest of this, but I can suggest that so far as the shrimping bit goes, your analysis is somewhat confused. There is a distinction to be drawn between subsidies (giving money to a business to underwrite their costs) and a tariff (exerting a tax on a certain type of goods being imported). While they do have in common one effect, making the domestic good relatively less expensive, they differ in many other effects. For example, imposing a tarriff brings in money to the goverment, and providing a subsidy spends it. And constitutionally, Congress does have the power to levy taxes.
JV: I am aware there is a differences between subsidies and tariffs. I quite specifically said the shrimp industry was given subsidies at Paul's request. The world tariff was never mentioned. So what makes my point confused? How did I confuse subsidies with tariffs if I never mentioned tariffs and if the shirmp industry got a subsidy, which is what I said?
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand the issue Ron Paul just forwards the requests of his constituants constituants (with the reasoning, I suppose, being that they might as well have as much chance on getting their money back as anyone else) and then votes against the bills. I think you are being too hard on him and too quick to judge. Whether you agree with this approach, (sending in the requests and then voting against the bills) the fact is that he is the Congressman who DOES vote against most actions of the federal government due to strict constructionist reasoning (and has taken alot of heat for many of his positions). I am all for pointing out the flaws of our own people, but this post seems more like a needless "friendly fire" incident than friendly contructive criticism.
After looking it up,
http://www.jarbobayoutimes.com/f.../
fisherman.html
the shrimp relief act looks like somethin Rep. Paul should be proud of. Usually there is more incentive for people who want protectionistic taxes or regulations to lobby the government because it only harms the pocketbooks of the other taxpayers slightly, but helps their's alot. Paul is actually using a percieved crisis in an industry to lower the size and scope of government (by attacking the regulations as part of his relief bill) and the tax burden by going after the subsidies. He would like to end all foreign aid, but it was a smart move to use an issue like this as an opportunity to get rid of some foreign aid that directly effect his constituants. Elect him as president and he will have more power to go after all foreign subsidies.
Transportation and infrastructure spending is constitutional. It is nearly as old as the Postal System.
Ian: the argument that he is merely doing what his constituants wants could be used by any politician to their own convenience. When they go along it is doing what the “people” want and when they don’t go along they are being “principled”. Such logic means one can never really criticize what they do. It also implies that the congressman who oppose earmarks are bad congressmen ignoring their constituants.
And that he votes against the proposals he puts into the bills doesn’t change the fact that they get passed and he gets credit for passing on the subsidies. He is playing both sides here. He’s done that before.
If Paul’s shrimp bill banned foreign aid I would say hurray. It didn’t. It only banned it to countries with competitive shrimp industries. It was a bill meant to gain favor from the shrimp industry. It selectively targeted one group in order to selectively benefit another group.
Amy: I didn’t say that everthing listed is unconstitutional. In fact I implied some might be by asking where the spending is authorized. But constitutional spending can also be pork. The “bridge to nowhere” wwould be infranstructure and thus considered constitutional by some (there were many who thought otherwise in history). And the debate over federal spending on infrastructure only really got started in the early to mid 1800s if I remember correctly.
Let's remember that from a classical liberal perspective that the only purpose of government should be to provide those ESSENTIAL goods and services that the private sector cannot provide at either a reasonable cost, as efficiently, or not at all.
Let's also remember that the reason congressional races are partisan is so that voters can have a choice of voting for a candidate whose overall political philosophy is in accordance with theirs aside from the Representative's duty to represent the will of the voting majority in his or her district.
Ron Paul largely gets re-elected by a mixture of big government Republicans, small government Republicans, Libertarians, and non-partisan voters in his district, so he is able to please a substantial number of his constituants all of the time.
If the 25 "pork" projects were ballot initiatives that I could vote on, I would vote NO on all of them except for perhaps #9 (the railway bridge repair project), and perhaps after researching more information on them, YES on #'s 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, and bayou projects 21 thru 25 if they fell into the "essential" category.
Where the private sector lacks on essential public transportation, I have no problem with subsidizing it.
There is no excuse for using taxpayer dollars for restoring the old theater in Edna or restoring an old ship (#21).
I agree with his rationale that his district should get back as much as possible. That's the way the current system works. A libertarian president and congress would change that, but they have to get elected before they can overhaul the system. Libertarians have to be pragmatic to get into a position to implement their ideals. I support Ron Paul.
This is a blatant deliberately misleading hit piece.
He passed on his constituents' requests for earmarks to Congress. This is his constitutional duty: to represent his constituents. When the bills come up for voting, he always votes no, because they contain unconstitutional spending. This is exactly what he should be doing, since he, like all congressmen, has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution.
So to recap:
He passes on his constituents' requests for earmarks because it is his constitutional duty to represent them in Congress.
He votes no on all bills that contain unconstitutional spending because it is his constitutional duty to do so.
Not all politicians use earmarks. One can successfully hold office without resorting to such favor granting. John Boehner (R-OH), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Lee Terry (R-NE), are confirmed as having not requested earmarks. And at least six Senators have eschewed the process as well.
I sampled the voting record of two of those representatives at opencongress.org. They voted "aye", fairly consistently, for the massive appropriations bills that currently have the American people paying out the arse in taxes.
Ron Paul? Mostly "no," except for some non-Iraq-war related defense appropriations.
So, net-net, Ron Paul votes "no" to try to stop perpetuating the fact that money leaves my pocket on a one-way trip to Washington, and tries to at least return some of that money to me through parliamentary maneuvering.
But the representatives held up as examples for consideration instead vote "yes" to continue the one-way money flow to Washington and -also- specifically avoid opportunities to return the money back to their constituents.
Uh... I'm not following the logic on this one. Why is the latter more desirable than the former?
consider it a group refund from the income taxes paid in and applied to a particular project. we can still claim deductions, can't we?
Ron Paul puts pork in bills he knows will pass, regardless of his lone no vote. Unconstitutional pork, at that. It's like Clinton's not inhaling bit, all over again. If the Paulites would just admit that their hero isn't the paragon of principle they make him out to be and move on, there'd be nothing to it. Their continuing protestations, tho lend more credence to their heroes pork barreling. As a Republican he may lean more towards the libertarian theme but, at the end of the day, he's still a Republican politician.
You do realize that earmarks do not increase spending, they simple direct it. Paul votes against spending like no other, but if money is spent, what is wrong with ensuring that some is spent in his district? If you think that government spends too much, then you're absolutely last target for derision should be Ron Paul. With friends like these..
So, what was the amount of federal tax dollars raised by the people in his district? Was it less or more than $400 million over the same period of time this 'pork' was earmarked? Ron Paul doesn't believe we should be taxed by the federal government, but as it is, we are. So, shouldn't we have representation and get something back for it?
Also, these projects should definitely be supported by the State and Cities, however, they cannot possibly raise their taxes with the federal government tax being so high. And why exactly do I pay more to the federal government than I do to my municipality which directly provides services to me and my familes?
I'm sorry, but if you consider yourself a libertarian, you would understand EXACTLY why Ron Paul has done this. That is unless your effort is to attack him for some reason.
BTW, when citing examples of other reps that haven't done this, you might want to include whether or not this is their first term. Might not actually get them re-elected, you know. 
If I am paying $13K a year in federal taxes (and $4K in state taxes) and my children's schools are falling apart and local businesses are closing up shop, I certainly wouldn't re-elect someone that didn't try to get some of my money back and thought it was better spent overseas on wars and welfare to foreign governments and companies.
As expected the faithful followers of St. Paul have gathered to pretend that pork isn’t pork when Paul does the serving. To show the hilarity of this just imagine if I had written about Obama or Clinton instead. They would be waxing eloquently about how the earmarks just proves these two are evil. When their messiah does the same thing they have a very different take. I am baffled why people, some of think they are libertarians, are so adamant to defend a conservative.
The arguments used to justify Paul’s lack of principle can be used by any politician. Why shouldn’t Pelosi bring some tax money back to the Bay Area? It no doubt pays a hell of lot more in taxes than Paul’s district does.
The all time dumb comment is the one about whether the federal tax dollars raised in that district exceed the earmarks or not. Obviously they would but then the $400 million isn’t the only money spent in that district. It is the tip of the iceberg. In addition most districts send more money to DC than they get back. It would be difficult to have everyone get back more than they send in. Again this would justify pork for almost every congression district in the country.
These are not rational arguments but religious arguments from the cult of St. Paul. None of hte faithful would buy this arguments if they were defending pork by other politicians. Double standards.
Mik and Brian sum it up perfectly. The rest of the comments here are making moot points or no points.
Paul is doing nothing unconstitutional. That is a fact. If he is, point it out.
CLS's feeling that it shows a "lack of principal" to pass on earmarks requested by his constituents is nothing but that... a "feeling".
Andrew: He doesn't pass on requests. He makes them. They are done in his name not in the name of the constituents. The letters that go to the committees are on his own and he signs each one requesting, in his name, that the funds be allocated to projects like renovating a theater. Something that he himself would acknowledge is unconstitutional.
Conservatives like Paul may be better than conservatives like Bush, not that it takes much effort. But he is still making the requests himself. That someone in the district asked him to spend money on the project is no different than any other politician. So stop pretending he's Mr. Principle.
CLS, you're grasping if you need to tell me who's name the request is in. Regardless, it's a request. There is nothing un-Constitutional about a request. The request might be for something un-Constitutional but the request itself is not.
Like I said, you might "feel" that it shows a "lack of principal" but don't expect others to feel that way.
...and I don't remember calling (nor "Pretending") Paul is "Mr. Principle" so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The reason I support Paul is that he's the first honest politician during my lifetime to be running for president in either major party with a chance to win that is spreading a message of freedom. That's good enough for me.
Andrew: you are grasping at straws here. You argue the request is not uncostitutional. I didn’t say the request is. I said the project he is requesting the funding for is unconstitutional and he knows it. This is pure hypocrisy of Paul, who is firmly on both sides of many issues. He puts in the requests which he knows will get granted. He knows the spending will pass. I don’t consider him honest. I consider him manipulative. I consider him a conservative.
Milton Friedman famous admonished libertarians that there was no reason for them not to use the sidewalks just because they were tax supported and government run. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, as long as government sidewalks exist and there are no private alternatives, there is no reason not to use what you are being forced to pay for. In the meantime, Friedman, like Ron Paul, worked tirelessly his to end unnecessary government activity. The sidewalks parallel to earmarks isn't exact, but it isn't far off base either. The red herring in this article is that there is a "slim" as in "snowballs chance in hell" that already budgeted money won't be spent -- and that is mere fantasy.
When a debate degenerates to using phrases like "cult of St. Paul," it is because the argument is on weak ground. A strong, clear, rational argument need not use such emotionalism, ad hominem logic, or other slurs to establish its merit.
Steve: You quote Friedman in one context, using a state monopoly where no private alternatives exist, and then apply to areas where there is no state monopoly and it is not relavant. There is no state shrimp monopoly, no state theater monopoly. Not only is this not exact, as you admit, if is well off the mark as you deny. It is pork, special privileges requested for specific private individuals.
And the “cult of St. Paul” describes the lunacy I see in alleged libertarians to worship at the feet of this man and to simply distort or lie their way out. They use excuses for Paul they wouldn’t accept for anyone else. He has conned the libertarians into thinking he is a libertarian. He has libertarian sentiments on some issues and conservative sentiments on others. Barney Frank has libertarian sentiments on some issues and socialist sentiments on others. Yet no one confuses Frank with a libertarian. Paul is a conservative on many social issues.
The only major social issue that I can think of, where he differs from conservatives is the war on drugs. But then numerous conservatives have argued against the war on drugs as well.
The OP makes excellent points. The earmark issue is Dr. Paul's Achilles Heel.
However, this will not change my support for Dr. Paul in the upcoming election. My reasons should be made clear by the following helpful Venn diagram:
http://i27.photobucket.com/album...orodog/
Venn.png
I applaud the OP for calling Dr. Paul to task on his one major ideological weakness. My hope is that this does not erode support for Dr. Paul, but rather pressures him to correct this error.
Dr. Michael Owen
Dr. Owen: I wish that were his "one" major ideological weakness. Compared to his voting for billions on the Wall and the eminent domain that goes with it, earmarks are relatively small potatoes.
Fascinating information. I need to do some research. Frankly, given Dr. Paul's reputation, I would never have thought of him lining up at the trough.
Ron Paul on Earmarks:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst20...
(Note: continue only if you are interested in my cursory research into the Ron Paul earmarks listed in a recent negative article linked at the bottom of this.)
Ron Paul is 100% for transparency in bills, including earmarks; 100% against self-serving earmarks; 100% for Congress "reading" bills in their entirety. The fact that he also has earmarks attached to his name should be accepted only after noting that his earmarks for his district divert already appropriated $$ from horrendous channels and point them in positive directions. Also, local governance and maintenance of infrastructures locally will only come about after major changes are made in the entire system and that is going to take some time.
I was triggered as many of you have been by the article in a Texas paper trying to make Ron Paul sound like a hypocrite for earmarks attached to his name. For the most part they have to do with buses in cities desperately needing them in order to improve mass transit, helping residents and reducing pollution; health care and providing nurses in critical areas, highway improvements (non-super highway funding.) Often a Ron Paul "earmark" has greater implications than the "mere" name of it. A few of the earmarks that caught my attention were:
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
The short answer...YES. http://www.jarbobayoutimes.com/fish...
And, I won't provide the links but chemicals and antibiotics in imported shrimp, particularly from China and others involved in aqua-farming as opposed to wild are of great concern. Look it up and I am sure you won't want imported shrimp. The FDA is supposed to check...but they are too busy checking dog food, I guess. This alone should be reason enough to protect "wild" shrimping and ensure that at least those of us in the US of A can have good shrimp caught off the gulf if we want it.
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
"Marketing" is a bit of a misnomer here. This in a nutshell has to do not just with shrimp, but with providing huge subsidies to importers of food products resulting in (1) inferior and perhaps unhealthy imports and (2) absolutely "killing" domestic industries...like we have the American farmer. It should be a "case study" for not subsidizing imports at the expense of American industries:
Here is what Ron Paul had to say:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/pre...
and also:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/docum...
And an interesting article on the "shrimp" issue concludes with:
"The shrimp fracas also was ironic in that it reversed the usual roles in international trade disputes: American shrimpers were cast as the Luddites resisting technological advancement in order to preserve a traditional way of life, while Vietnamese and Chinese aquaculturist
Here is the article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southe...
And you listed:
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
Check out the health risks of vanadium in certain mining industries and especially in fertilizer. Check out the high levels found in some areas of Texas. Think about the greater meaning...to agriculture, informing the public about toxins and their impact on our health. Do you think this kind of information will come from the EPA or the Department of Agriculture?
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
I would hazard a guess that the good Doctor has encountered many cases of asthma and pharma-dependent victims. If you know anyone
particularly children whose lives have been altered by mass-marketed enhalers and massive doses of cortisone you know how sad it is. There are non-invasive treatments and just training in personally managing your asthma can bring about amazing results. Read up on the huge increase in asthma due to the pollutants in the air and allergies due to toxins and chemicals in the food. I imagine unnecessary medical trauma saddens Dr. Paul.
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
I wish somebody had repaired that bridge in Minnesota. The corps of engineers has evaluated this causeway and it is UNSAFE. It is also the access to Galveston Island and much of the surrounding economy is dependent upon it. Senator Hutchinson just got money appropriated not to "repair" it...but to REPLACE it and the money was tied to HOMELAND SECURITY. Perhaps her earmark was to ensure it is replaced in a manner more conducive to the goals of the North American Highway.
Ron Paul also earmarked for maintenance of the port of Texas City.
This port was in dire need of maintenance and if you read up on how that city was just about blown away by a tragedy that occurred in 1947, those folks deserve a safe and well-maintained port.
I won't go on, but a brief look at the list of earmarks brings only applause from me. No bridges to nowhere...no land improvements in an area that backs up to his home to improve his property value...no paybacks for contributions. Just an honest Representative trying to see that his district gets their "fair share" until the time when states can take care of states...communities take care of communities. I see much needed infrastructure appropriations; I see concern about health issues; I see concern about the economy in his district. I see an honest Politician/Statesman.
It should be noted that although these were Ron Paul "earmarks" the appropriation bills they were attached to were probably so pork of a different kind laden by the time they went to vote that he couldn't even vote for them. Would take more research to find out.
SHAME on "The Houston Chronicle" and the neocons who prompted this article and SHAME on the uninformed blogger who spread it on the net.
Fonta: A dyed-in-the-wool faithful Paulist says Mr. Paul is against self-serving earmarks. To quote Penn and Teller: Bullshit! When you bring home the bacon to your district you know you will benefit. The shrmp pepole were happy and so were all the other recipients of federal funding due to Paul’s intervention. And you think that doesn’t help him?
Then he whines that the shrimp industry has to test their competition for antibiotics. Gee, I thought Ron believed in free markets. If the shrimp industry wants to test foreign shrimp they can do it with their own money. And I love the remark “that alone should be reason to protect ‘wild’ shrimping”. Protectionism not free trade. And whether “wild” shrimp are great or not is not a Constitutional power of government and one they neither perform nor fund.
Again Fonta doesn’t get it. He sounds like a typical spending type who argues if there is any good reason then the feds should fund it. That is not what Paul pretends to believe. He argues that only Constitutional defined functions belong to the govt. And Fonta instead argues along the “well is such a nice idea to do this that feds should fund it” point of view. I’m glad he’s out of the closet in support of unconstitutional funding and argues this way. His post exposes how Paul is undermining the views he says eh supports by these earmarks.
If the shrimp industry wants to test foreign shrimp they can do it with their own money.
Good point. As I indicated earlier, the earmark issue is something I want to look into. There have been a number of thoughtful, factual comments made here that will help me to do that.
Either the request PER SE (albeit for unconstitutional spending) is unconstitutional--or it is not.
That is the crux of the issue.
Now, if the REQUEST--in and of itself--is not unconstitutional, there is no inconsistency.
JoshM: Actually there is still a problem if the request is constitutional. Is it a waste of funding? Even if there is no new funding then funding may be diverted from projects that are truly needed and constitutional to projects that are not needed and constitutional. That is still derelection of duty though within constitutional confines. For instance the Wall Street Journal, not speaking about Paul at all, notes how earmarks have been used in highway spending bills.
There they earmark funding to non-essential projects or "new" spending (which is always good for the congressman because it is something people see and attribute to him. Maintenance thus tends to be ignored and underfunded while the new vanity projects are funded. As the Journal noted the earmarks have distorted the spending on highways and so bridges are neglected and sometimes disasters happens as a result.
you don't understand the concept
What I mean is that he is still speaking on behalf of his region. That is his job right now and he is doing it. Once Ron Paul is elected president, he will do exactly what he said he would. Anything else he does will be to the betterment of America and thus the world, as we set a proper example. I have faith in this nigga.
Jspliff: You show me where the oath of office says that a Congressman is to "speak on behalf of his region." I only find reference to the Constitution. I think you are in for rude awakenings -- several. Ron Paul is going nowhere but to Lake Jackson -- but no doubt the loony brigade will blame it on those mysterious bankers that Ron is always alluding to. And you language really does him a service.
You can find this article on Fox News website:
"At least 1 million pounds of suspect Chinese seafood landed on American store shelves and dinner plates despite a Food and Drug Administration order that the shipments first be screened for banned drugs or chemicals, an Associated Press investigation found.
The frozen shrimp, catfish and eel arrived at U.S. ports under an "import alert," which meant the FDA was supposed to hold every shipment until it had passed a laboratory test."
So again, why is it a bad idea to have earmarks to promote HEALTHY AMERICAN FOODS??
CLS:
It's not in the oath of office, it's in Article I of the Constitution:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . ."
If not to represent their respective districts, what is the purpose of a body of elected representatives?
If Ron Paul is doing it then it is the right thing to do. You just need to look a little deeper and reason it out until you see his genious.
J: What is a genious?
As for Paul. We have seen what he is by the company he keeps. And I stand by my prediction that I made originally that he was going nowhere. When it is all said and done you will find he took in millions and has millions in the bank account that he never even tried to spend on his campaign. He took the suckers for what they worth while making a half-assed campaign effort. And what do you think will happen to the funds that are left over?
One they will be used for the real campaign he had in mind, not the presidential run which I think was a sham, but his congressional race. Even then I suspect millions will be left over. He is then free to donate them to a tax free foundation. He just happens to run one himself. His good buddy, who edited the racist newsletter that Paul published, runs another. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get a share of the funds. But only time will tell for sure.
Commenting by HaloScan
