What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rand Paul changes his mind on earmarks (1 Viewer)

St. Louis Bob

St. Louis Bob

Footballguy
Money talks.

Rand Paul, the next Republican US senator from Kentucky, has done an about-face on earmarks even before taking office.

In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal, Paul signaled a major backtrack on a core campaign promise: cutting federal earmarks. The promise is a hallmark of Republican candidates of all stripes, who advocate that a smaller government is in the national interest and that money doled out for special progress is tantamount to backroom dealing.

"In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night," Paul told the Journal for an interview published Saturday.

"I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he added.

The comments markedly diverge from a promise still live on his campaign website, titled, "Earmark ban coming?"

"Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign," Paul's campaign wrote on his website. "He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint’s vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban."

“The Tea Party movement is an effort to get government under control,” Paul is quoted as saying on his site. “I’m running to represent Kentuckians and to dismantle the culture of professional politicians in Washington. Leadership isn’t photo-ops with oversized fake cardboard checks. That kind of thinking is bankrupting our nation. Senator DeMint understands that and has taken action to stop it.”

randpaul earmark ban 101108b Revealed: Rand Paul reverses on core campaign pledge before even taking office

Paul's predecessor, Sen. Jim Bunning, requested $21 million in earmarks in his last two years in Congress alone, including more than $10 million for a "Laser Phalanx" in 2010 and "Next Generation Phalanx with Laser Demo" in 2009. (Bunning was recently in the news for holding up an unemployment bill.)

The Journal interview also provides more insight into Paul's thinking, and how his approach to government differs from his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a veteran congressmember in the House.

"Father and son, age 47, have different styles," the Journal's Matthew Kaminski writes. "Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax."

Kaminski also adds that Paul jokes that Congress shares similarities with the Soviet Politburo, the executive committee that ran communist Russia.

"Next on his docket are term limits," Kaminski adds. "He jokes that the Soviet Politburo saw more turnover than Capitol Hill. He also wants to "sunset" all regulations until approved by Congress. 'Let them write all the regulations they want,' he says. 'They do anyway, but in two years they're gone unless they get voted on by Congress.'"

The Republican senator-elect, despite supporting earmarks for his home state, told ABC News' Christiane Amanpour that he would support slicing military spending.

"You need ... compromise on where the spending cuts come from," Paul told Amanpour. "Republicans traditionally say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we won't touch the military. The liberals -- the ones who are good -- will say, oh, we'll cut the military, but we won't cut domestic spending."

"Bottom line is, you have to look at everything across the board," he added.

"Where, then? Military? Would you cut the military?" Amanpour asked.

"Yes. Yes," Paul replied.
Click to expand...
link

I thought/think he is a nut but I thought he was an honest nut. Turns out the is a crook like the rest of them. You guys can start a million threads arguing D's & R's but it's all a big joke.

I may not vote again except on local issues. I've had it.

 
Earmarks are how you bring your congressional victory home. People hate this idea of earmarks, but they love their local projects.

 
I don't think there's anything wrong with fighting to get the money back until you don't have to fight for it at all. :goodposting:

 
Wow. He could have at least pretended that he meant what he said for a little while. Looks like politicians really are all the same. Our system is broken, folks. Just a matter of time.

 
CrossEyed said:
Wow. He could have at least pretended that he meant what he said for a little while. Looks like politicians really are all the same. Our system is broken, folks. Just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
I agree that Paul should have kept his charade going longer. I disagree that this instance proves "politicians really are all the same". Paul and tea party candidates like him campaigned and were rewarded at thg ballot box largely due to their anti-gov't platform. Bans on earmarks and vows to make massive spending cuts were the sales pitch and lots of voters bought it, regardless of how unlikely it was to occur and the potential devastating effects it would have on an already fragile economy in danger of deflation. Hold Paul and those who reverse course on their fundamental campaign promises accountable. Stuff like "well it looks like all politicians are the same" is cutting Paul and others like him slack.
 
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:

a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and

b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"

 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's pretty much the same argument the Libs made after the stimulus was passed and Repubs tried to get some of it for their home states. Why wouldn't they? The money is going to be spent regardless.
 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
i agree
 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Did Rand Paul actively campaign on B?
 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Sure there is.Same thing as saying:1. I am against stealing2. But if everyone else is stealing I may as well get mine tooThat logic works in two places apparently. 1. Washington DC2. LA riots
 
Full WSJ interview with Paul and Roy Blunt

The interview took place the morning after the election. To be fair, he doesn't say that he's not going to support an earmark ban.

He's right that this is a symbolic issue in terms of actual impact on the federal budget but I don't see the upside in his flip-flopping on this so soon after the campaign and in a friendly interview with the WSJ. The other proposals he mentioned here would have far more impact on reducing spending and will be much less popular (both within Congress and with his constituents) than him eschewing earmarks and working for a ban.

 
bg0546 said:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's pretty much the same argument the Libs made after the stimulus was passed and Repubs tried to get some of it for their home states. Why wouldn't they? The money is going to be spent regardless.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: The GOP campaigned against the stimulus and then turned around and showed up at ribbon cuttings and wanted to take credit for "bringing jobs and money back to the state".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
FWIW - There are people out there (John McCain for instance) who are opposed to earmarks and refuse to take them. It's not a zero sum thing where there is specific amount of "earmark" money out there and Paul would just be getting his fair share for KY. Every dollar earmarked for KY is money that wouldn't be in the budget otherwise. He's either wasting money (from his point of view) or he isn't.
 
Some prescience on the part of Senator-elect Blunt, from the same article:

Mr. Blunt says Republicans are happy to embrace most tea party causes. He'd back a balanced budget amendment and endorses term limits—à la Rand Paul. And earmarks? Mr. Blunt pauses. "Rand doesn't agree with his dad on that. His dad is a leading advocate of earmarks on this side of the building. I'll let the Pauls work that out and then I'll see where they come down." We share a laugh over that.
Click to expand...
Also some insight into how Blunt, a member of the GOP establishment, views his Tea Party brethren:
The elephant, as it were, in the room is how well the Republicans can get along with tea partiers who are energized by their ideas more than the party. Cue Mr. Blunt. "I'll repeat again: communication, so they understand. You got to keep talking to people who have these expectations so they understand what the fight is about at the moment." He adds that Sens. Rubio and Paul are "great" to have in Washington, but "I think everything will not turn out the way they think it will."
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:

a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and

b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
FWIW - There are people out there (John McCain for instance) who are opposed to earmarks and refuse to take them. It's not a zero sum thing where there is specific amount of "earmark" money out there and Paul would just be getting his fair share for KY. Every dollar earmarked for KY is money that wouldn't be in the budget otherwise. He's either wasting money (from his point of view) or he isn't.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If the Fed gov't decides it needs a new IRS hub for processing returns, that place is going to get built. I don't see anything wrong necessarily wrong with soliciting that the hub be built in a certain state. But if the person is soliciting for something like studying whether or not a state's crops taste better, then that's wasteful pork and should not be allowed.
 
Phurfur said:
Did any of you read the article? I can't find where he said he was for earmark spending.
Click to expand...
I think it was the part where he said he would fight for Kentucky's "share" of earmark spending, so long as it is "transparent."
 
flufhed said:
Phurfur said:
Did any of you read the article? I can't find where he said he was for earmark spending.
Click to expand...
I think it was the part where he said he would fight for Kentucky's "share" of earmark spending, so long as it is "transparent."

Click to expand...
Please show me the quote, I only saw where the author inferred this from this statement, "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests,". That is quite a jump. I would hope he would include the quote!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rayderr said:
Arsenal of Doom said:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:

a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and

b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
FWIW - There are people out there (John McCain for instance) who are opposed to earmarks and refuse to take them. It's not a zero sum thing where there is specific amount of "earmark" money out there and Paul would just be getting his fair share for KY. Every dollar earmarked for KY is money that wouldn't be in the budget otherwise. He's either wasting money (from his point of view) or he isn't.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If the Fed gov't decides it needs a new IRS hub for processing returns, that place is going to get built. I don't see anything wrong necessarily wrong with soliciting that the hub be built in a certain state. But if the person is soliciting for something like studying whether or not a state's crops taste better, then that's wasteful pork and should not be allowed.
Click to expand...
Possibly. He doesn't make any kind of distinction - all though to be fair I'm just going by what was quoted above, which only qualifies that the earmarks are passed transparently. I'm not judging him, and agree 100% that earmarks are a symbolic "problem" at worst. I just wanted to point out that there are people who see them as a problem and forego them altogether.

 
Phurfur said:
flufhed said:
Phurfur said:
Did any of you read the article? I can't find where he said he was for earmark spending.
Click to expand...
I think it was the part where he said he would fight for Kentucky's "share" of earmark spending, so long as it is "transparent."

Click to expand...
Please show me the quote, I only saw where the author inferred this from this statement, "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests,". That is quite a jump. I would hope he would include the quote!
Click to expand...
The Wall Street Journal reporter did not provide a direct quote, he paraphrased as below (interview here):
Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong at all with the "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy. Not taking a stand on your principles seems like a great way to change the culture in Washington. :lmao:
 
bagger said:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:

a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and

b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Sure there is.Same thing as saying:

1. I am against stealing for making stealing illegal

2. But if everyone else is stealing I may as well get mine too
Click to expand...
Playing by the rules in place, and actively trying to get the rules changed can be logically consistent. However, seeing as the issue is largely symbolic, I think the better route would be to refuse to acquire any earmark funding.
 
D_House said:
Phurfur said:
flufhed said:
Phurfur said:
Did any of you read the article? I can't find where he said he was for earmark spending.
Click to expand...
I think it was the part where he said he would fight for Kentucky's "share" of earmark spending, so long as it is "transparent."

Click to expand...
Please show me the quote, I only saw where the author inferred this from this statement, "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests,". That is quite a jump. I would hope he would include the quote!
Click to expand...
The Wall Street Journal reporter did not provide a direct quote, he paraphrased as below (interview here):
Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When you accuse someone of something like this you need a direct quote. This is all hearsay, why would I believe his interpretation when he could provide a quote? This is the only quote I see "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says and there is nothing wrong with that.There is nothing to see here.

 
Hope and change?

It's kinda funny that he ran on that platform, yet actually carrying it out would result in bringing almost nothing home for his state...yet people really thought he'd be able to do something on this.

 
Phurfur said:
When you accuse someone of something like this you need a direct quote. This is all hearsay, why would I believe his interpretation when he could provide a quote? This is the only quote I see "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
If Paul feels the author misrepresented his position, I'm sure we'll see a clarifying statement issued. Otherwise, I see no particular reason not to take the article at face value. It's not as if it even came from a source you'd normally write off as having a left-leaning agenda. The WSJ doesn't have anything to gain from misquoting Rand Paul.
 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Phurfur said:
When you accuse someone of something like this you need a direct quote. This is all hearsay, why would I believe his interpretation when he could provide a quote? This is the only quote I see "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
If Paul feels the author misrepresented his position, I'm sure we'll see a clarifying statement issued. Otherwise, I see no particular reason not to take the article at face value. It's not as if it even came from a source you'd normally write off as having a left-leaning agenda. The WSJ doesn't have anything to gain from misquoting Rand Paul.
Click to expand...
Well the OP's article is from Raw Story which does have a bias. Anyone got a link to the WSJarticle that Raw Story is taking the quotes from?
 
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It's still fair to criticize Paul for not campaigning openly on (b) (assuming he didn't), but this is way down my list of things to get upset about. I'd rather have a libertarian in the Senate who goes against his own principles from time to time than a principled Democrat.
 
bagger said:
Andy Dufresne said:
No really. There's nothing incongruous in saying:

a) "I oppose earmarks on principle and want them banned" and

b) "as long as Washington is going to take Kentucky's money for these projects then I'll fight to get some/most/all of Kentucky's money back for these same projects"
Click to expand...
Sure there is.Same thing as saying:

1. I am against stealing

2. But if everyone else is stealing I may as well get mine too

That logic works in two places apparently.

1. Washington DC

2. LA riots
Click to expand...
Not the same at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

General Malaise
$$ How Much Do You Spend Per Work Day On Lunch?
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
belljr
belljr
Chadstroma
Yet More Proof Women are Impossible to Please
4 5 6
Replies
261
Views
8K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
FarFromHome
Military disability rating
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
FarFromHome
FarFromHome

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top