From today's Victoria Advocate:
'Dr. No' will say yes when it comes to his district
But usually votes against spending bills that contain funds he asked for
June 27, 2007 - Posted at 12:00 a.m.
BY SUZANNE GAMBOA - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - He's known as "Dr. No" for all his votes against government spending, including a medal for the pope and civil rights leader Rosa Parks. But Rep. Ron Paul isn't saying no to spending in his district.
Paul, a presidential candidate and physician, has requested earmarks for about 50 items, largely for water projects, according to request letters released by his office.
However, Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor.
Although he is a Republican, Paul espouses Libertarian values for limited government.
Those values led him to be the lone dissenter in a 2000 House vote to award a Congressional Gold Medal to John Paul II because of the cost to taxpayers.
But in written requests Paul submitted to the House Appropriations Committee, he asked for $8.6 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel and $10 million for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge.
He also asked for money for a nursing program, expansion of a cancer center at Brazosport Hospital, a seafood testing program, a Children's Identification and Location Database and $8 million for Wild American Shrimp Marketing requested by the Texas Shrimp Association.
Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Paul has always asked for spending in response to requests from local governments.
"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's (his) job to make sure money comes back in the district," Lizardo said.
However, Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor.
So far this year Paul has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans, and state/foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.
Many lawmakers feel they are better off requesting funding for specific projects rather than waiting for a bureaucracies to decide which project is funded. Paul agrees, Lizardo said. He has said that, if money is already planned to be spent, he sees nothing wrong with steering some of it toward the needs of his district. However, as the article says, he still votes AGAINST those spending bills, even after they include something for his district. So, how is this news? This is what he has always said. He's against spending and taxes.
The idea is that he doesn't believe it is right for the government to be spending all this money, so he will oppose the bills. However, if the money is going to be spent anyway, why shouldn't his district have some of it just like the rest of the nation? It sounds perfectly rational to me. What's the problem? I rest MY case! He asks for the funds and then votes NO when it comes up on the floor! Is this guy a nut case or what! Lol is that the best you clowns can come up with? Ok and Dubbyah? Well there is no point even starting to talk about all the bad points about that man as I would be here until next year. There is a lot that Ron Paul and I agree on - like taxation, National Animal ID being a very bad idea and the vaccine/autism connection needing to be investigated. But, there is too much important that Ron Paul and I disagree on for me to consider him a serious contender for my vote.
This is a good example of where Paul and I disagree and his true politician colors show. If the money is going to be spent anyway? Well, if Paul hadn't added it to an already burgeoning spending bill it wouldn't have been in the total, thus is would not have been spent.
I know we talk about trillions in federal spending, but even $8 million is a LOT OF MONEY. And, if it hadn't been in there at all that $8M wouldn't have been spent. How many taxpayers worth of income tax does $8M represent? Let's pick a taxpayer's 2006 burden of approx. $1200 a year, which is that of a $12,000 taxable married filing jointly income. 10% of the household's taxable income for those politicians who can't do the math. An $8M spending item represents the taxes of more than 6,600 potentially low- low middle class income households - just for one congressman's district's pet project. That is more households than in many rural American communities.
There isn't one city in the county where I live that has 6,600 households! As a matter of fact, it would probably take a total of 10 communities in my area to fund that one item in a larger spending bill.
Maybe if a few more congressman would get the concrete math skills necessary to conduct financial business they would realize that this is not good politics OR economics. We know legislators don't individually weigh the necessity of each project in these bills, so we know that necessity is going to be questionable in a high percentage of the spending.
Ron Paul is trying to look like the good guy both ways - get money for my district, but don't vote on the spending myself, let someone else take the fall for the bill to which I contributed. How two faced is that! Meanwhile, he is spending ALL the tax contribution of over 6600 households for a potentially questionable project. "He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's (his) job to make sure money comes back in the district," Lizardo said.
That one quote is the only substantial sentence in the article. You just inspired me to ask my question. "Why is it that after months of ignoring Ron Paul, the AP chooses to run at leat two unflattering stories just this week? . I'm sure everyone is well aware of the journalistic integrity of the AP. I don't think anyone understands Ron Paul's stand on taxation.
I have read Dr. Pauls money book, published in 1991.
He believes in a much smaller federal government and wants the several states to mostly govern themselves, without any handouts from the federal gvt.
Is that possible in this day and age?
I believe Ron Paul has the ability to make that happen if he gets support from we the people and his fellow elected officials.
Reagan, a very popular president did cut back on federal money being sent to the states. But here we are back again with the federal gvt. supporting many agencies within the states.{D.H.S.,forest service, etc.}
**************************************... It really is time for all the liberals and teenies to stop talking about him. He has no chance of being nominated let alone elected. The party wants a potential winner and he is at the bottom of the list. |
