Rand Paul changes his mind on earmarks (1 Viewer)

[urbanhack]

Guess these guys didn't hear the message WE gave them.

http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-mah...jKyMQIAbAUXOA==

 

[Bull Dozier]

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"

I view it as a matter of principal.As others have said, without a balanced budget, Paul isn't simply getting Ketucky's money back. Any earmark he gets for Kentucky does not affect what Kentucy is going to pay in taxes (currently). He is simply getting money from the bottomless cavern of future debt to be paid by everyone's grandchildren.If there was a balanced budget requirement, your argument would be more persuasive. As it is, he's simply getting money from everyone that otherwise wouldn't be spent. You can argue if that is just or not, but you can't explain it away as simply as he's getting Kentuckians' money back.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Tea Party members - seriously how does it feel getting #### on?

Was it solid or more runny?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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"

I view it as a matter of principal.As others have said, without a balanced budget, Paul isn't simply getting Ketucky's money back. Any earmark he gets for Kentucky does not affect what Kentucy is going to pay in taxes (currently). He is simply getting money from the bottomless cavern of future debt to be paid by everyone's grandchildren.If there was a balanced budget requirement, your argument would be more persuasive. As it is, he's simply getting money from everyone that otherwise wouldn't be spent. You can argue if that is just or not, but you can't explain it away as simply as he's getting Kentuckians' money back.

I guess I misunderstand how it works then. I'm under the impression that in committee they say something to the effect of "We have $X to spend on stuff like infrastructure...who wants it?" and then they proceed from there to determine who makes the best case. Is this not so?

 

[D_House]

Also germane to this discussion is the fact that Kentucky receives more federal funds than it pays in taxes. So those earmarked funds that Rand Paul wants to ensure 'stay in Kentucky' are really funds redistributed from wealthier states.

 

[Sam Quentin]

You don't unilaterally disarm. That's a bad strategy.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Also germane to this discussion is the fact that Kentucky receives more federal funds than it pays in taxes. So those earmarked funds that Rand Paul wants to ensure 'stay in Kentucky' are really funds redistributed from wealthier states.

But not all of those dollars are earmark dollars.

 

[Bull Dozier]

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"

I view it as a matter of principal.As others have said, without a balanced budget, Paul isn't simply getting Ketucky's money back. Any earmark he gets for Kentucky does not affect what Kentucy is going to pay in taxes (currently). He is simply getting money from the bottomless cavern of future debt to be paid by everyone's grandchildren.If there was a balanced budget requirement, your argument would be more persuasive. As it is, he's simply getting money from everyone that otherwise wouldn't be spent. You can argue if that is just or not, but you can't explain it away as simply as he's getting Kentuckians' money back.

I guess I misunderstand how it works then. I'm under the impression that in committee they say something to the effect of "We have $X to spend on stuff like infrastructure...who wants it?" and then they proceed from there to determine who makes the best case. Is this not so?

I suspect you're baiting me with this "I don't really know how it works" line, but I'll bite since I'm not that smart. No, I don't think that is how it works, but I could be totally wrong. My understanding is that you've got bills that probably wouldn't get enough support to go through, but you've got deals going on where they're exchanging non-germain earmarks for support of the bill.If they are actually working from some predetermined pool of money, and the earmarks are dividing that up, then I'll withdraw my opposition.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I suspect you're baiting me with this "I don't really know how it works" line, but I'll bite since I'm not that smart. No, I don't think that is how it works, but I could be totally wrong. My understanding is that you've got bills that probably wouldn't get enough support to go through, but you've got deals going on where they're exchanging non-germain earmarks for support of the bill.If they are actually working from some predetermined pool of money, and the earmarks are dividing that up, then I'll withdraw my opposition.

I'm not baiting. I really don't know either. But then, I am really naive. I'm fully aware that I ascribe more valor and high mindedness on the process than is really there. Just call me Jefferson Smith, I guess.

 

[sirelfman]

You know who was different? Christine O'Donnell. And yall killed her for it.

Yeah shame about that. Loonies are often misunderstood.

She's not Loony, they have their own party.

 

[videoguy505]

Or not?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604680661943738.html

In a post today on WSJ.com, Kaminski shares his tape:

In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.

His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Question: What if someone comes to you and says here’s an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn’t do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that’s the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let’s go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that’s not wide enough? Let’s use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you’re powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, ‘hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri’?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I’m on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that’s the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that’s all the money we have. Instead they just say, ‘What do you want to spend?’ It’s all about what do you want instead of what do you have.

 

[flufhed]

Also germane to this discussion is the fact that Kentucky receives more federal funds than it pays in taxes. So those earmarked funds that Rand Paul wants to ensure 'stay in Kentucky' are really funds redistributed from wealthier states.

Ooooof

 

[flufhed]

You don't unilaterally disarm. That's a bad strategy.

Unless, of course, promising to do so is central to your run for office.

 

[urbanhack]

You don't unilaterally disarm. That's a bad strategy.

Unless the 27 other top national defense budgets (which all add up to ours), are all your allies.

 

[D_House]

Or not?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604680661943738.html

In a post today on WSJ.com, Kaminski shares his tape:

Was just going to post this. It's also relevant to note that Senator-elect Paul has signed on with Sen. Jim DeMint's earmark ban.

 

[Kumerica]

Did any of you read the article? I can't find where he said he was for earmark spending.

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."

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!

The Wall Street Journal reporter did not provide a direct quote, he paraphrased as below (interview here):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.

"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.

 

[DrJ]

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"

I view it as a matter of principal.As others have said, without a balanced budget, Paul isn't simply getting Ketucky's money back. Any earmark he gets for Kentucky does not affect what Kentucy is going to pay in taxes (currently). He is simply getting money from the bottomless cavern of future debt to be paid by everyone's grandchildren.If there was a balanced budget requirement, your argument would be more persuasive. As it is, he's simply getting money from everyone that otherwise wouldn't be spent. You can argue if that is just or not, but you can't explain it away as simply as he's getting Kentuckians' money back.

I guess I misunderstand how it works then. I'm under the impression that in committee they say something to the effect of "We have $X to spend on stuff like infrastructure...who wants it?" and then they proceed from there to determine who makes the best case. Is this not so?

I suspect you're baiting me with this "I don't really know how it works" line, but I'll bite since I'm not that smart. No, I don't think that is how it works, but I could be totally wrong. My understanding is that you've got bills that probably wouldn't get enough support to go through, but you've got deals going on where they're exchanging non-germain earmarks for support of the bill.If they are actually working from some predetermined pool of money, and the earmarks are dividing that up, then I'll withdraw my opposition.

Pretty sure your version is the accurate one. Bill needs X votes to pass, they only have Y votes. There's a few people out there that are on the nay side, but could potentially be swayed if you toss some millions/billions to their state, oftentimes directly to their buddies. So you put a bunch of stupid things into the bill that have absolutely nothing to do with what you suggested you were "trying to accomplish", guy votes yay, and the bill is now crappier than the version before that couldn't pass on its own merit because it sucked in the first place.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Sad, simply sad. I thought we had a nut that would go in and clean house, but he has been brought into the fold. Kinda like a new guy at a union shop is asked to slow down, don't make the rest of us look bad.

 

[videoguy505]

The Wall Street Journal reporter did not provide a direct quote, he paraphrased as below (interview here):

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.

"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 actual transcript is in post #61.

 

[DrJ]

The Wall Street Journal reporter did not provide a direct quote, he paraphrased as below (interview here):

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.

"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 actual transcript is in post #61.

Seems to me he's saying he's against earmarks, and the problem comes in because the stupid reporter doesn't even seem to understand what earmarks are.

 

[DrJ]

Tea Party members - seriously how does it feel getting #### on?Was it solid or more runny?

Obama did it.

 

[datonn]

Rand Paul changes his mind tune on earmarks, 5 whole days after the election.

There...fixed the thread title for ya. H2H

 

[DrJ]

Rand Paul changes his mind tune on earmarks, 5 whole days after the election.

There...fixed the thread title for ya. H2H

Neither is all that accurate. By saying he wants the funding to pass through commitee, he's saying he's against earmarks.

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

 

[videoguy505]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.

But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

 

[DrJ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Yeah, pretty diabolical of him. But since the author is confused on what an earmark actually is, they're free to interpret Paul's statement however they want.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

 

[DrJ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

Happen to have a link to Rand Paul describing earmarks to substantiate this?The only luck I'm having with a search of "Rand Paul Earmarks" or "Rand Paul campaigns against earmarks" is pages upon pages of this exact same story. The liberals are definitely frothing, no doubt.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.

But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

Happen to have a link to Rand Paul describing earmarks to substantiate this?The only luck I'm having with a search of "Rand Paul Earmarks" or "Rand Paul campaigns against earmarks" is pages upon pages of this exact same story. The liberals are definitely frothing, no doubt.

Is your google broke? Link

 

[DrJ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.

But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

Happen to have a link to Rand Paul describing earmarks to substantiate this?The only luck I'm having with a search of "Rand Paul Earmarks" or "Rand Paul campaigns against earmarks" is pages upon pages of this exact same story. The liberals are definitely frothing, no doubt.

Is your google broke? Link

Not seeing anything in there where he describes earmarks.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.

But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

Happen to have a link to Rand Paul describing earmarks to substantiate this?The only luck I'm having with a search of "Rand Paul Earmarks" or "Rand Paul campaigns against earmarks" is pages upon pages of this exact same story. The liberals are definitely frothing, no doubt.

Is your google broke? Link

Not seeing anything in there where he describes earmarks.

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

 

[DrJ]

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen him describe earmarks as approriations that have been debated by the proper committees and allocated out of funds dedicated for that committee's purpose?

 

[tommyGunZ]

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen him describe earmarks as approriations that have been debated by the proper committees and allocated out of funds dedicated for that committee's purpose?

No. That was videoguy's language, seemingly making an excuse for Paul's flip. If you have beef, take it up with videoguy.

 

[DrJ]

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen him describe earmarks as approriations that have been debated by the proper committees and allocated out of funds dedicated for that committee's purpose?

No. That was videoguy's language, seemingly making an excuse for Paul's flip. If you have beef, take it up with videoguy.

That was Paul's language, in the full transcript of the question posted in #61.

 

[tommyGunZ]

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen him describe earmarks as approriations that have been debated by the proper committees and allocated out of funds dedicated for that committee's purpose?

No. That was videoguy's language, seemingly making an excuse for Paul's flip. If you have beef, take it up with videoguy.

That was Paul's language, in the full transcript of the question posted in #61.

Do you have a point?

 

[GroveDiesel]

That's the point. He bashed earmarks altogether. To now comeback and take the position videoguy suggested is BS.

No it isn't. Have you ever seen him describe earmarks as approriations that have been debated by the proper committees and allocated out of funds dedicated for that committee's purpose?

No. That was videoguy's language, seemingly making an excuse for Paul's flip. If you have beef, take it up with videoguy.

That was Paul's language, in the full transcript of the question posted in #61.

Stop trying to make this about "facts" and "what was actually said." It's less outrageous that way.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Stop trying to make this about "facts" and "what was actually said." It's less outrageous that way.

My point is that Paul wasn't making the distinction between "good" earmarks and bad ones during the campaign. He simply bashed them. Now to come out and say that he'll advocate for earmarks if they're well researched is in direct contradiction to his "ban on earmarks" campaigning.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Everybody is against pork. Except the pork that they get.

 

[DrJ]

Stop trying to make this about "facts" and "what was actually said." It's less outrageous that way.

My point is that Paul wasn't making the distinction between "good" earmarks and bad ones during the campaign. He simply bashed them. Now to come out and say that he'll advocate for earmarks if they're well researched is in direct contradiction to his "ban on earmarks" campaigning.

Those aren't earmarks, that's the process you're supposed to go through to get federal money, that's the point.Never at any point did Paul suggest he was going to attempt to get no federal money spent in Kentucky whatsoever. It's his job as a Senator to represent their interests. He's not planning to go about getting the money in the form of earmarks though, he's going to make the case in committee as to why their projects have merit. Imagine if you will a government that says we have 10B to spend on infrastucture and everyone has to make their case as to why their projects deserve a piece of that 10B. Rather than a government where there are no budget considerations whatsoever and spends money as it pleases trying to buy votes.

 

[datonn]

Those aren't earmarks, that's the process you're supposed to go through to get federal money, that's the point.

Never at any point did Paul suggest he was going to attempt to get no federal money spent in Kentucky whatsoever. It's his job as a Senator to represent their interests. He's not planning to go about getting the money in the form of earmarks though, he's going to make the case in committee as to why their projects have merit.

Imagine if you will a government that says we have 10B to spend on infrastucture and everyone has to make their case as to why their projects deserve a piece of that 10B. Rather than a government where there are no budget considerations whatsoever and spends money as it pleases trying to buy votes.

When I read this response, I swear the first thought that popped into my head was Bill Clinton saying "it all depends upon what your definition of 'is' is." Rand Paul campaigned on reducing the size of the Federal government, correct? Regardless of how getting into an argument on the formal definition of "earmark" turns out, the point is that Paul wanted less Federal government. Less spending. Less debt and a lower deficit. You're saying that if the government has $10 billion available for infrastructure, Paul's going to want (dare I say is obligated) to get in there and mix it up for his $200+ million for Kentucky! What I think others might be saying is that Paul campaigned on a much larger issue. Not promising to fight for that "$200 million" in Washington! But rather to reduce the size of the $10 billion pie altogether. Or do you have a different take on the issue?

In layperson's terms, it's all earmarks/pork when it isn't in "your" backyard. Adding two lanes to a freeway in Tumbleweed, OK doesn't mean a hill of beans to us here on the prairies of Minnesota...just like adding two lanes to Highways 14 or 60 here in Minnesota doesn't mean a hill of beans to people in Oklahoma. So since those people in "Oklahoma" or "Minnesota" have been making due with what they've got, they can continue to make due for another several years. [sarcasm] Unless it's a project in "my" backyard though, correct?! Well then...go get 'em tiger! Show those "fat-cats in Washington" how we roll in the "507," and bring 9-10 figures of "their" money back here to the home team. [/sarcasm]

Maybe Sarah Palin should ask Rand Paul how that "hopey-changey thing" is working out for Rand Paul supporters?

 

[videoguy505]

He's not saying he's against all spending whatsoever...

 

[DrJ]

Those aren't earmarks, that's the process you're supposed to go through to get federal money, that's the point.

Never at any point did Paul suggest he was going to attempt to get no federal money spent in Kentucky whatsoever. It's his job as a Senator to represent their interests. He's not planning to go about getting the money in the form of earmarks though, he's going to make the case in committee as to why their projects have merit.

Imagine if you will a government that says we have 10B to spend on infrastucture and everyone has to make their case as to why their projects deserve a piece of that 10B. Rather than a government where there are no budget considerations whatsoever and spends money as it pleases trying to buy votes.

When I read this response, I swear the first thought that popped into my head was Bill Clinton saying "it all depends upon what your definition of 'is' is." Rand Paul campaigned on reducing the size of the Federal government, correct? Regardless of how getting into an argument on the formal definition of "earmark" turns out, the point is that Paul wanted less Federal government. Less spending. Less debt and a lower deficit. You're saying that if the government has $10 billion available for infrastructure, Paul's going to want (dare I say is obligated) to get in there and mix it up for his $200+ million for Kentucky! What I think others might be saying is that Paul campaigned on a much larger issue. Not promising to fight for that "$200 million" in Washington! But rather to reduce the size of the $10 billion pie altogether. Or do you have a different take on the issue?

In layperson's terms, it's all earmarks/pork when it isn't in "your" backyard. Adding two lanes to a freeway in Tumbleweed, OK doesn't mean a hill of beans to us here on the prairies of Minnesota...just like adding two lanes to Highways 14 or 60 here in Minnesota doesn't mean a hill of beans to people in Oklahoma. So since those people in "Oklahoma" or "Minnesota" have been making due with what they've got, they can continue to make due for another several years. [sarcasm] Unless it's a project in "my" backyard though, correct?! Well then...go get 'em tiger! Show those "fat-cats in Washington" how we roll in the "507," and bring 9-10 figures of "their" money back here to the home team. [/sarcasm]

Maybe Sarah Palin should ask Rand Paul how that "hopey-changey thing" is working out for Rand Paul supporters?

When a bridge falls down on people in Minnesota, everyone cares about it. And they suggest we should replace our aging infrastructure wherever that may be. Paul isn't suggesting the federal government should have no part in any of this, he's suggesting that they should live within budgetary constraints and everyone should have to make their pitch as to why their project should be at the top of the priority list. Rather than it being attached to some bill with no debate, no consideration for budgetary constraints, and people never actually even hearing about it.It's entirely clear this is what he's saying:

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I’m on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that’s the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that’s all the money we have. Instead they just say, ‘What do you want to spend?’ It’s all about what do you want instead of what do you have.

He can fight for projects in Kentucky and still reduce the federal budget. Presuming we stop handing out blank checks and do it with some consideration for budgetary constraints, and understand that this bridge in Kentucky comes at the expense of a bridge elsewhere.

 

[Saints-Man]

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"

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.

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".

Uh...how is that different from Democrats who want to raise taxes but pay the lower tax(like income taxes) when their attempts to raise taxes fail? If they were principled, wouldn't they just pay the higher taxes, regardless of what the law stated?

 

[Choke]

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"

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.

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".

Uh...how is that different from Democrats who want to raise taxes but pay the lower tax(like income taxes) when their attempts to raise taxes fail? If they were principled, wouldn't they just pay the higher taxes, regardless of what the law stated?

Dont be stupid.

 

[flufhed]

So if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," that's an earmark.But if someone says "I want some of this pile of money to go to Kentucky for some project," and some research goes into it, and it turns out that the project actually is a worthwhile use of the money, and is the best way to spend that money, then Rand Paul might vote for it?

Aren't 99% of earmarks like those you described in your 2nd paragraph? Unfortunately, that's not the way Rand Paul and the new deficit hawks described earmarks when demonizing federal spending on the campaign trail.

It's not like we are being unfair to Republicans.McCain, for example, has been pointed out in this thread who talks the talk and walks the walk when it comes to earmarks.Like someone said earlier, if you are saying "funding for another state's project = earmark. Funding for my state's project = a good investment" --> that is not a new attitude for earmarks. That is more of the same.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I thought/think he is a nut but I thought he was an honest nut. ...

Never heard of his Ophthalmology Certification? Of course as libertarian he should be opposed to all certifications for anything.

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"

Any evidence that Kentucky as one of the top feeders at the federal trough has changed since 2005 or so? Any evidence that those that whine the most about their taxes being seized by the federal government are not the biggest beneficiaries of federal government activity?

 

[D_House]

Or not?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604680661943738.html

In a post today on WSJ.com, Kaminski shares his tape:

Was just going to post this. It's also relevant to note that Senator-elect Paul has signed on with Sen. Jim DeMint's earmark ban.

There has been a lot of Hippling in this thread. Whether you take Paul's words in the interview to mean he will take earmarks for Kentucky or not (I'm convinced that the WSJ interviewer got it wrong), it's pretty clear that his actions (which are what actually matter) on the issue to date have been consistent with his campaign pledge. He, along with several other new GOP Senators, has signed on with DeMint's earmark ban.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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"

Any evidence that Kentucky as one of the top feeders at the federal trough has changed since 2005 or so? Any evidence that those that whine the most about their taxes being seized by the federal government are not the biggest beneficiaries of federal government activity?

That's a different argument, though, as those numbers aren't restricted to earmarks.

 

[Colts Win]

Guess these guys didn't hear the message WE gave them.

http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-mah...jKyMQIAbAUXOA==

Bill nails it again.

 

[cr8f]

You are saying he was actually against them once? I don't buy it. He was against medicare in principle too but never sent back a single check.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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"

Any evidence that Kentucky as one of the top feeders at the federal trough has changed since 2005 or so? Any evidence that those that whine the most about their taxes being seized by the federal government are not the biggest beneficiaries of federal government activity?

That's a different argument, though, as those numbers aren't restricted to earmarks.

OK, Kentucky ranks 17th in earmarks consuming $2.9 billion of $115 billion in earmarks (2.5%). They rank 29th in tax revenue collected, which my calculations are .8%. So they get 3 times as much in earmarks as their fair share already.(Yes I realize the years in question vary, so feel free to sync those up and correct the details.)