Ron Paul is believed to be a "fiscal conservative" and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is make sure that he earmarks that he wants are put in a bill, and then votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.
In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives. (source: Open Secrets):
Last April Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you're a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. It reminds one of the Gangster Big Julie, a character in the musical Guys & Dolls, who best line in the play was
"Well, I used to be bad when I was a kid, but ever since then I've gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!"These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to "is this the most efficient place to house this program?" Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone district of a different congressman.
Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn't have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. When I saw them at CPAC, Paul supporters reminded me of those wide-eyed cult members that used to panhandle at airports. That wasn't particularly bothersome, after all people should have some passion. Problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a "drooling crazy" type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.
4 comments:
Your language makes it clear that you already have a bias against Ron Paul and his supporters. You seem to have decided they're all moon bats with nothing legitimate to say. I believe you are wrong.
I also find it quite strange that with all the corruption, the scandals, and downright trampling of the constitution which goes on in Washington and the many politicians who seem to have a complete lack of morals and often ignored dirty dealings, you choose to focus your attentions on Ron Paul. While his actions sound slightly hypocritical and perhaps imperfect, he is still one of the best politicians we have, and he strives to follow the constitution to the letter.
As for the statements that you open with, they are not quite as extreme as you make them sound, and if you investigated them and did a little research you might be surprised. Even you admit that someone wrote those old essays under his name, which is all too likely given that he has no pattern of racist or bigoted remarks.
With regard to the Lincoln statement, even my high school and college History teachers have used the argument that Ron Paul has, that Lincoln and the US government could have purchased the slaves from the southern slave owners and then liberated them. Is this such an outrageous claim? Would it have been so unreasonable a thing to try, considering the death toll of the Civil War?
As for his speculations of the Federal Reserve, can you claim to know all about the Federal Reserve's actions? No you cannot. The Federal Reserve allows no audit, no investigation, and no transparency. Given the amount of power they have and the extent to which their secrecy goes, it is not at all unreasonable to make claims of who or what they might be funding or have funded in the past.
Call me a "wide eyed cult member" if you like, but I think you're the one who's being ridiculous. I think for myself, and disagree with Ron Paul about much of his foreign policy and his views about national defense.
But I've looked into what he's said, and with everything that's come to pass economically, he's predicted much of it. He sure doesn't come off as crazy anymore with regards to his economic statements.
thanks for keeping it real Sammy.
as a college kid of the early 90s the first attempt to indoctrinate me into his cult was around 1992.
(1) there are better ways then the Gold Standard to bring a realistic and fair market that is not virtual.
(2) his personal attacks on Israel are disturbing. one argument that the Paul people bring up is that the earmarks a very small part of our economy. They are correct... they are... in fact those earmarks are greater then the money given to Israel to help America fight terrorism. This is a correlative that is rarely brought up.
that comment about the North buying slaves was absurd. the commenter misses the point to liberty completely.
as for the FED... that is right... we don't know what is going on. if we did... we would panic. that is why it is set up the way it is. I'm all for accountability, but obviously there needs to be a certain economic clergy who are also scrutinized systematically. our government is all about checks and balances. That doesn't always mean it is completely transparent.
Since I am sure you will get plenty of zealous outrage from the Ronulans, I just want to give you a conservative thank you for this honest criticism of an overblown strange attractor.
Post a Comment