Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul flips on Earmarks before he is even sworn in !

Originally posted by filosophia
Apparently the newspaper misquoted Rand Paul

Lord this is getting mind numbing...

From Wikipedia on Earmarks..

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").

Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise might not vote for.

en.wikipedia.org...(politics)


You know why the Wall Street Reporter said Rand was going to ask for Earmarks??

Because that is exactly what he said to the WSJ reporter...

Rand Quote from WSJ:

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.

Here he says he would GRANT earmarks as well……

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,

Okay this is where you say…HE WAS MISQUOTED…Well Here he is saying the same thing to ABC..

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

OKAY this is where you say…Maybe ABC misquoted him too…Well here is the video of him on cnn saying AGAIN.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Here is what he says in the rebuttal video..

"I am opposed to Earmarks and I won't use earmarks as a senator"

Then he immediately says "I think the Appropriations process should go through Committee and I have said that I will advocate for Kentucky within the context of the Committee Process"

Again From Wikipedia on Earmarks..

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").

Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise might not vote for.

en.wikipedia.org...(politics)

I am not alone in my read on what Rand Paul said to both the WSJ and CNN...Even outlets on the right are speaking up….not just the WSJ.

The National Review
Is Rand Paul Already Selling Out

Leading up to the election, Paul was adamant about killing pork-barrel spending, says Veronique de Rugy in National Review. So I'm taken aback by how quickly he's "selling out." Even if you look at his comments charitably, he's still promising to send federal money back home "to buy state and local goodies," which is hardly "in line with my dream of going back to true fiscal federalism."

theweek.com...

EACH TIME HE HAS SAID HE WON’T ASK FOR EARMARKS AND THEN GOES ON TO DESCRIBE HOW HE WILL ASK FOR EARMARKS.

HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF EARMARKS TO AFFORD HIM THE LUXURY OF FLIPPING ON THE ISSUE.

reply to post by maybereal11


and another member pointed out the the WSJ misquoted Rand Paul's statements, which were further distorted by the oped piece.

There is a difference between spending money we"have" vs spending money we don't have.

ATS Thread talking about the edited statements attributed to Rand Paul

Originally posted by filosophia
www.prisonplanet.com...

This is what the article said

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.

And here is what he actually said

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.

So do you expect an apology or just the usually smear tactics?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
ATS Thread talking about the edited statements attributed to Rand Paul

Originally posted by filosophia
www.prisonplanet.com...

This is what the article said

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.

And here is what he actually said

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.

So do you expect an apology or just the usually smear tactics?

I have underlined the portion above that the WSJ reporter accurately interpreted to be Rand Paul saying he would use earmarks.

Please ....please READ THE POST ABOVE YOURS ...SEE WIKIPEDIA..RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN...WHAT I HAVE UNDERLINED IN WHAT YOU TERM RAND PAUL'S ACTUAL, TRUE QOUTE....RAND IS DISCUSSING THE VERY DEFINITION OF EARMARKS...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AN EARMARKS IS.

Now...I will give you this...he is saying he will stay within the bounds of what is budgeted when he asks for his earmarks, but that doesn't change the fact that they are earmarks.

Let's say a bill is passed that allocates 500 Million for roads repair...what he says he will do is go to committee after the bill is debated and passed and barter/bargain/argue/cajole/horse-trade whatever to get as much of those funds directed just to Kentucky. Where typically the committe reviews the needs of all states and will allocate the funds dependant on needs...rand will go and play politics and get an "earmark" that is not subject to debate or public discussion, directing those funds just to Kentucky.

The issue is...what if some state needs the money more? But Rand trades a future vote on some measure to get 400 of the 500 Million sent his way? There is a reason that the Committee/Appropriations should be able to decide independantly who needs the money...otherwise it becomes about power and political horse-trading (earmarks).

IT is an EARMARK....MOST EARMARKS ARE OBTAINED EXACTLY THIS WAY.

READ about Earmarks...start with Wiki linked above and then read what Rand said....and THINK while you are reading.

That is what the WSJ reporter did...he was thinking...he knows what an earmark is...and he accurately conveyed Rand Paul's position.

If there was any confusion...Rand has said it multiple times since...SEE POST ABOVE YOURS.

So in other words your saying Rand Paul's comments about earmarks are just as accurate as Nancy Pelosi's was when she said earmarks would end on her watch?

The Federal Government has a vested interest in using the tax money collected to send it back to the states so projects can commence, be finished, started, funded etc.

The manner in which it is done, doling it out like its no big deal, is the issue Rand Paul has, and stated as much. He said he would not accept earmarks in the manner its done now, because it is not sustainable and drives us further into debt.

Rand was sent to Congress to represent the people of Kentucky. He would not be doing his job if he did not advocate for the interests of Kentucky. The manner in which he will do is fiscal responsibility. If he gets funding, he wants to ensure the actual funding is there, and is not a deficit earmark.

To go from claiming he is flip flopping, using an article that takes his words out of context and then ignores what he actually said, is typical partisan BS, and its getting old.

Democrat, Republican, Tea Party.. I could care less what group someone belongs to, as longs as their goal is to reduce spending, pay off our debt, and govern responsibly. This notion that we cannot support a candidate because of the group he belongs to is our undoing. The group politics harms the US in every way manageable, because parties do not want to compromise to get something done for the American people. They want to be in absolute control to ram through legislation that is geared towards only one group.

We put of legislation that is desperately needed because a party does not want to share the limelight of its success.

There is nothing wrong with taking earmarks provided there is money there to fund it, and only when those funds are from existing tax collections and not printed money. I would much rather see 2 billion dollars go to any state in the union, rather than to a Brazilian Oil Company (as we did over the summer).

In case you missed my tone, I am sick and tired of the partisan politics. Partisan Politics are the reason we are behind the rest of the world in Math, Science, Nuclear technology, education, infrastructure, research and development of new techs.

We are destroying ourselves.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
So in other words your saying Rand Paul's comments about earmarks are just as accurate as Nancy Pelosi's was when she said earmarks would end on her watch?

To go from claiming he is flip flopping, using an article that takes his words out of context and then ignores what he actually said, is typical partisan BS, and its getting old.

Pelosi?...distraction...we are talking about Rand.

I am not ignoring what he actually said...What he actually said is precisely what I have issue with.

Here we go...see video here...he is talking about EARMARKS just like I said

online.wsj.com...

reply to post by maybereal11


Correct... He is saying that the manner in which earmarks are given is what is causing the problem. He has no issues with them if they are done in a manner where the funding already exists, and it is deficit neutral. In other words the way earmarks are done, and have always been done - Dole it out without knowing if its there or not.

Latching into something he said in an effort to spin it into something else is getting old. The interview, that has been linked by several other members, go into detail in regards to his remarks, where he clarifies his position.

Earmarks with no process established to determine if the money is there = bad and he would not do.

Earmarks with a process and available funds that do not create a deficit = acceptable and in line with what the Government is suppose to be doing.

This is not a hard concept to understand.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Correct... He is saying that the manner in which earmarks are given is what is causing the problem.
He has no issues with them if they are done in a manner where the funding already exists, and it is deficit neutral. In other words the way earmarks are done, and have always been done - Dole it out without knowing if its there or not.

Yep. Correct. But he is still talking about earmarks....and what he says he will do, within budget, are STILL EARMARKS, STUCK IN DURING COMMITTEE, NO PUBLIC DEBATE etc.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Latching into something he said in an effort to spin it into something else is getting old. The interview, that has been linked by several other members, go into detail in regards to his remarks, where he clarifies his position.

Where have you been? It was me that was the first to include his fulla ccurate statement and who repeatedly linked to it. I am not spinning. What he says he is going to do is still earmarks and it still violates the pledge he signed in every way. No Spin....at least form me.

www.cagw.org...

HE BROKE HIS PLEDGE...NO SPIN THERE...READ THE PLEDGE HE SIGNED...IT SURE AS HELL DOES NOT SAY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T GO OVER BUDGET EARMARKS ARE FINE!!!!

HE LIED ABOUT NOT ASKING FOR EARMARKS ....HE LIED TO GET ELECTED.

Earmarks with no process established to determine if the money is there = bad and he would not do.

Earmarks with a process and available funds that do not create a deficit = acceptable and in line with what the Government is suppose to be doing.

This is not a hard concept to understand.

Apparently it is for you. It is still an earmark.

If 500 Million is allocated in a bill for US Bridge repair...and Rand Paul horse trades in Committee to get all of that 500 Million directed to KY...it is still within budget, but it is still an earmark...and if KY doesn't need 500 Million and other states do, then it is still wasteful and distasteful and frankly BS...Earmarks are not just about going over budget...that is least of reasons why earmarks suck.