Comments on: Dr. No Says ‘yes’ to Earmarks http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/ The Conscience of the Republican Party Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:30:59 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Wiseburn http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Wiseburn Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:46:06 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=630#comment-67 It doesn't seem fair to criticize Paul for voting against moving spending decisions to the executive branch when we don't know what the executive branch would spend the money on. If the amendment is to not fund a $750 million railway realignment and instead fund martial law in Denver, would anyone criticize voting against the earmark. Until the amendments to eliminate earmarks also eliminate the associated spending, I will trust Dr. Paul for not supporting them. Dr. Paul reported all his earmark requests. Give the man credit for transparency and voting against the final spending bills. Steve It doesn’t seem fair to criticize Paul for voting against moving spending decisions to the executive branch when we don’t know what the executive branch would spend the money on.

If the amendment is to not fund a $750 million railway realignment and instead fund martial law in Denver, would anyone criticize voting against the earmark.

Until the amendments to eliminate earmarks also eliminate the associated spending, I will trust Dr. Paul for not supporting them.

Dr. Paul reported all his earmark requests. Give the man credit for transparency and voting against the final spending bills.

Steve

]]> By: pblumel http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-55 pblumel Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:29:46 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=630#comment-55 On August 21st, 2008 jzneff says: "It's very funny...that Ron probably requests and gets as many earmarks as any other congressmen...but he still votes no on the spending bill... It's not like Dr. Paul is selling his vote for the earmark...they know'll he'll vote no either way." Yes, Ron votes against the ultimate bill and everyone knows he will, but he and everyone else also knows the appropriations bill is going to pass anyway. So when he votes for other politicians' earmarks and other politicians vote for his earmarks, he is obtaining the full political benefit of earmark trading. This is the dirty little secret of Ron's lofty position on earmarks. On August 21st, 2008 jzneff says:
“It’s very funny…that Ron probably requests and gets as many earmarks as any other congressmen…but he still votes no on the spending bill…
It’s not like Dr. Paul is selling his vote for the earmark…they know’ll he’ll vote no either way.”

Yes, Ron votes against the ultimate bill and everyone knows he will, but he and everyone else also knows the appropriations bill is going to pass anyway. So when he votes for other politicians’ earmarks and other politicians vote for his earmarks, he is obtaining the full political benefit of earmark trading. This is the dirty little secret of Ron’s lofty position on earmarks.

]]> By: pblumel http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-49 pblumel Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:07:20 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=630#comment-49 >>>I think his argument that the Constitution assigns the minutiae of spending to the Congress is also incorrect.<<<< Good point, but even if Rep. Paul were right that earmarking is a legitimate responsibility of Congress, it doesn't make pork projects acceptable just because they are earmarks! Pork is pork and Ron is missing an opportunity to strip it out of bills by his pro-earmarking votes. I would reiterate that friends of Ron should call or email Ron (contacts are in the article above) and respectfully inform his aides that his supporters want him to vote against earmarks. >>>I think his argument that the Constitution assigns the minutiae of spending to the Congress is also incorrect.<<<<

Good point, but even if Rep. Paul were right that earmarking is a legitimate responsibility of Congress, it doesn’t make pork projects acceptable just because they are earmarks! Pork is pork and Ron is missing an opportunity to strip it out of bills by his pro-earmarking votes.

I would reiterate that friends of Ron should call or email Ron (contacts are in the article above) and respectfully inform his aides that his supporters want him to vote against earmarks.

]]> By: Dave Nalle http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Dave Nalle Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:16:12 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=630#comment-48 I think his argument that the Constitution assigns the minutiae of spending to the Congress is also incorrect. That seems to go against the entire concept of an executive branch and the division of powers between those two branches of government. IMO it seems highly desirable to have more than one body involved in spending. It provides some checks and balances, which certainly fits with the spirit of the constitution. Dave I think his argument that the Constitution assigns the minutiae of spending to the Congress is also incorrect. That seems to go against the entire concept of an executive branch and the division of powers between those two branches of government. IMO it seems highly desirable to have more than one body involved in spending. It provides some checks and balances, which certainly fits with the spirit of the constitution.

Dave

]]> By: bkingsf http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-46 bkingsf Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:33:48 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=630#comment-46 I have great respect for Dr. Paul, but in this instance he's wrong. Some of the earmarks he has supported are clearly unconstitutional and violate basic principles of good government. I have great respect for Dr. Paul, but in this instance he’s wrong. Some of the earmarks he has supported are clearly unconstitutional and violate basic principles of good government.

]]>