RE: Looking for Shrimp in the Constitution
I'm sure the hit-pieces will start rolling in now. The comment on the story by iiiyraeg says it better than I can.
Ron Paul’s reasoning, which took me a while to figure out, is this: the money claimed by earmarks WILL be spent; it’s not a question of how much earmarking there will be, but who will get it. The only way to kill the earmarks is to kill the entire bill, which Ron Paul consistently votes to do, year after year. Since he cannot win the overall budget battle, he does his best to ensure that a fair share of the earmarked money at least returns to the taxpayers he represents, and not exclusively to someone else’s constituents. Once in a while his earmarks stick and his constituents get a bit of the federal loot returned to them in public projects (not as good as tax refunds, but better than nothing).
Yeah, it’s too clever by half (he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon), but it is consistent with his philosophy.
posted by Anonymous | 8:23 AM
7 Comments:
Yeah, it’s too clever by half (he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon), but it is consistent with his philosophy.
It's not consistent with his philosophy. Ron Paul always says that before he votes on anything in Congress, he always asks himself if what he is voting for is constitutional. How is asking for $8 million to market wild American shrimp or $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing the responsibility of the federal government???
Earmarking has nothing to do with voting. Earmarking is putting in a request with the federal agencies that spend the money for them to spend it in a particular way. Dr. Paul asks for the earmarks (and usually doesn't get them), but he votes against the spending. In essence, he is voting against his own earmarks.
It's weird, but it is consistent.
I don't see how it is consistent. Isn't Paul asking for this money to be sent to his district??? He shouldn't even be asking for this money due to the fact that it's not the federal government's responsibility. That's like me asking for $1 million to fund a teapot museum, and then voting against the spending. If I believed that the federal government has no business funding a teapot museum, I wouldn't even make a request.
So if he refuses to ask for the money to be spent in his district, does it affect the spending one way or the other? The money is already budgeted. It will be spent. Taxpayers in his district contributed to what will be spent. Should they just swallow hard while all their money goes into a rat hole in Alaska? There is a limit to what being a purist will accomplish. He was elected to represent his district. Refusing to make the request might polish his ego and conscience, but it isn't doing a thing one way or the other with regard to his representation.
I honestly don't know what I would do in the same situation. I'm not much on the whole fairness thing, but returning at least some of the money to his district seems better than just waving goodbye to it. In the end, he still casts his vote against spending the money at all.
No surprise that Paul is catching flak from some folks on this one.
Nuance is definitely not the strong suit of anyone who still affiliates themselves with the GOP.
If Paul could get the Republican nomination he would stand a great chance of winning the presidency. But i do not think that there are enough intelligent people left in the GOP for that to happen.
Steve opines: So if he refuses to ask for the money to be spent in his district, does it affect the spending one way or the other? The money is already budgeted. It will be spent. Taxpayers in his district contributed to what will be spent. Should they just swallow hard while all their money goes into a rat hole in Alaska? There is a limit to what being a purist will accomplish. He was elected to represent his district. Refusing to make the request might polish his ego and conscience, but it isn't doing a thing one way or the other with regard to his representation.
When you were a commish, Steve, the board voted to accept federal money to pay for dental care for migrant workers. You were against it, and one of your arguments was that this wasn't a governmental responsibility. One of Carol Bailey's arguments for it was that this was "free" money, and if we (Stokes County) didn't accept this money, it would just go somewhere else. You were totally against her points on principle. In my humble opinion, Ron Paul's argument and Carol Bailey's argument is the same argument. You disagreed with Carol's arguments then, and yet, you're accepting Paul's arguments now.
"I honestly don't know what I would do in the same situation. I'm not much on the whole fairness thing, but returning at least some of the money to his district seems better than just waving goodbye to it. In the end, he still casts his vote against spending the money at all."
Even if returning at least some of the money to his district is better than nothing, why didn't Paul at least request it for something where a case can be made for government funding like on roads, public safety, etc??? He requested federal money for marketing shrimp... I hope you wouldn't have done that if you were in his shoes.
The kind of grants like the migrant worker dental thing weren't free money, though. They always required a match from the County.
If you talk about what Dr. Paul should accept, you are on dangerous ground. Roads and public safety are just as unconstitutional as shrimp testing. The only roads allowed by the constitution are the post roads and public safety is completely a matter for the states. There is very little that falls within strict constitutional guidelines that he could ask for. I imagine if he knows of anything, he does pick those first.
If the money is going to be spent anyway, or more properly if I can't stop it from being spent, I don't have a big problem with it being spent on my constituents. For example I would (and did) vote for a matchless grant from the NC Department of Agriculture to promote Stokes County sweet potatoes. Migrant worker dental programs don't represent a return on the taxpayers' money. I imagine shrimping is the big business in Dr. Paul's district.
Post a Comment
<< Home