Do Ron Paul’s Supporters Refuse to Admit His Faults When It Comes to Earmarks?

I was reading an article on, “Ron Paul’s Pork Problem,” which basically criticized Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) for being a hypocrite on fiscal conservative principles by arguing for smaller government and less government spending but getting 22 earmarks (totaling $96.1 million) in the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill.

Now, I love Dr. Paul.  He’s one of my favorite Congressmen, but I disagree with his stance on earmarks.  According to his Congressional website, “As long as the Federal government takes tax money from his constituents, he will make every effort to return that money to his district.”

So, while I disagree with him, I still have a HUGE amount of respect for Dr. Paul, but I am willing to admit that this (in my opinion) is a fault of his.

Now, take a look at some of the comments left on

  • “Congrats, you just lost a member.”
  • “Ron Paul has never voted for a bill with unconstitutional provisions in it. He is the most principled statesmen in Congress. You lost all your credibility with this “Pork Problem” article. You also lost me as a member!”
  • “This article is very one sided. You obviously cannot stand the fact that Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the Republican Party. Please remove me from any of your biased e-mails! There is nothing conservative about this web site.”
  • “Ron Paul votes against the spending. Then if the money that they voted on doesn’t get spent on ear marks, it ends up being spent by the Executive Branch. Does that sound constitutional to you?! I can’t believe this was posted here. How completely irresponsible. I am out of here. I hope others with any logical sense of reason will follow unless this website retracts this article immediately and sends out an e-mail apologizing for being stupid.”

So, my message to those supporters of Dr. Paul who refuse to admit his faults, he’s a great man, but he’s not perfect, and I think his stance on earmarks is out of line with conservatism.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: Add to diigo :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Do Ron Paul’s Supporters Refuse to Admit His Faults When It Comes to Earmarks?”

  1. RightWingReform Says:

    I totally agree with you here. He was on with Tim Russert a while back (obviously) and Russert absolutely throttled him on the earmark problem. Dr. Paul gave the same reason that you listed. I think that a lot of RP supporters are so into his ideals that they overlook certain aspects of his platform. A great man to have in Congress, though.

  2. Jack Says:

    He adds earmarks for his district because he wants the taxes from his district back. Then votes against the spending. If it passes the money from his district would be spent anyways. Shouldn’t he get as much back for his district as he can? I fail to see the hypocricy? Where the money is spent matters. If it is going to be spent anyways it should benefit those he serves as much as possible or he is failing his district. Earmarks are not the problem.. they are less than 3% of the budget. Earmarks are propaganda used to vilify honest representitives. You have fallen for it. But now you know.

  3. inkslwc Says:

    I understand why he ads them. And it’s good tht he votes against the spending, but if he wasn’t adding those earmarks, as much money would not be being spent. The failure in your argument is when you say, “if it is going to be spent anyways,” because it doesn’t have to be spent – it should be given back to the taxpayers by lowereing taxes. Earmarks aren’t the ONLY problem, but they are a problem.

  4. Jack Says:

    Nope… you fail to realise the spending bills have a price tag on them already, say, 20B.. an earmark is taking a slice out of that already established 20B and reserving it for a specific purpose. No seriously, look it up. Thats how it works. It does not raise a poorly thought out 20B bill to 20.1, It’s saying 900M out of that 20B goes to my district. It’s not adding any cost. It’s saving some of it for the people you serve. And if you ask me thats responsible representation. Or to put it better..true conservitism. Earmarks are a witch hunt drummed up by Neo-Con’s to limet the amount of money that “We” actually get back as opposed to the Govm’nt. It’s a non issue as far as total spending.

  5. inkslwc Says:

    No, earmarks have been around since the Civil War era, while the Neoconservative term was coined in the 1970s. Probably the earliest that you could even classify someone as a neoconservative would’ve been the early 1900s with the World Wars, but the term would be more applicable to the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, etc….

    But that’s all off topic.

    And spending bills don’t have a “price tag” on them – they have a budget to adhere to, and each committee (and then subcommittee) is given a spending ceiling. Appropriations are then made in the committees and brought together to make the omnibus spending bill.

    But a spending ceiling doesn’t mean that they have to spend up to the limit.

    You can find more information on the appropriations process here:

    But again, a spending ceiling is not the same as a price tag.

  6. Jack Says:

    Spending ceiling is the additional descretionary funding built in to an appropreation bill. Waste equals 200% of the descr. fund on average while earmarks make up 3% of the total or 1.5% the waste. Where would you start to cut again? Waste is generaly 30% or more (In military spending it is sometimes as much as 500% of the total aloted.) of the bill. I would start there. Idealy we wouldn’t even have these expeditures to deal with but we have to work in the system we have. I still do not see Dr. Pauls position as hypocricy. It certainly does not rise to the level of say…. 700B given to failed banks so they can sustain their inordinate profits off of unrealistic interest or over inflated houseing prices.

    And yes your right about how long earmarks have been around, as I am about how long they’ve been a “problem”. They were not a problem untill Keynsian economics and neo-conservitism made them such. And compared to waste they are ,as I said ,a non issue. (for me at least) But thank you for bringing it up. More discussion on this would be good.

  7. inkslwc Says:

    Oh, you’re absolutely right in saying that earmarks are the small compared to other waste. I’d love to see cuts across the board (if I had my way, we wouldn’t have Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. – whatever happened to the days where people SAVED for retirement!), but I also think that earmarks are something that has to go as well.

    While we disagree on the issue of earmarks, I’m glad that we can come to a consensus that the government wastes a huge amount of money in other places.

  8. Jesse Says:

    inkslwc – if you could, by the wave of your wand, get rid of earmarks what would happen?

    his argument is sound because it pertains to the laws as it is written. no?
    he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do as a congressman.

    the fact is that ron paul is the most fiscally responsible that i know of and this would be a great time to spread his reasoning instead of fighting him on it. he needs as many people in his corner as he can get right now.

    one thing that people know about paul is that he stands for the rule of law and he will do his job to the best of his ability in that. obviously he is not perfect. who is? its the principle and fact of the matter thats important.

    ron’s not being a hypocrite, he makes his case very well here.

  9. inkslwc Says:

    I know that he makes his case. And I’ve said before, it’s a logical argument (as most of his arguments are), I just disagree with it.

  10. automotive floor jack Says:

    I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my IMHO, which indeed could be very wrong.
    p.s. You have an awesome template for your blog. Where did you find it?

  11. Jesse Says:

    i know you disagree, but i don’t see what your solution is.

    you said:
    “but I also think that earmarks are something that has to go as well.”

    that’s why i asked what you would do?
    “if you could, by the wave of your wand, get rid of earmarks what would happen?”

    you said:
    “it doesn’t have to be spent – it should be given back to the taxpayers by lowereing taxes.”

    he can’t do that on his own and he tries to do that.

    you also said, and jack refuted:
    “if he wasn’t adding those earmarks, as much money would not be being spent.”

    but then where does the money go?

    so it begs the question. what do you do if not what ron paul does?

  12. Jesse Says:

    you also said “his stance on earmarks is out of line with conservatism”

    so what is the “conservative” stance?

  13. inkslwc Says:

    The money would go to the federal government, who would then be able to use that money to pay off some of the debt we owe.

    “Conservative” in the sense of less government spending.

  14. Jesse Says:

    yeah, except, in that case, paul has been the most conservative. who has called for reduced spending more than paul has? who wants to cut cut cut? who has been talking about the disastrous policies of the federal reserve?

    if you think that the federal bureaucracies would give up that money to pay off the debt, then you are mistaken. it is exactly the federal government that has incurred the debt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: