FARK.com: (5746953) Rand Paul reverses himself on earmarks before he even takes office. RAND PAUL

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Rand Paul reverses himself on earmarks before he even takes office. RAND PAUL (rawstory.com)		174
		More: Obvious, Rand Paul, Christiane Amanpour, pledge, R-TX, Obama girls, backroom, Jim Bunning, buyer's remorse

• • •

3090 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2010 at 2:11 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/5746953

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

174 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

Dubai Vol		2010-11-09 02:39:02 PM

Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

Earmarks are one percent of the budget, and earmarks=/=pork. Anyone wasting their time even talking about earmarks is an idiot, and the politicians who use it as a campaign issue are cynical assholes who are playing you people with your hands up for idiots. How pathetic that this is what American politics has devolved to: even the people who bother to care about politics are so ignorant that they waste their time and energy on a complete non-issue. Congratulations, you already ARE an Idiocracy.

Emposter		2010-11-09 02:39:38 PM

Larofeticus: People do an awful lot of whining about just a fraction of a percent of the deficit.

What's $20,000,000,000.00 between friends?

Lando Lincoln		2010-11-09 02:39:47 PM

farkstorm: He is allowed to reverse himself because his last name is a first name and his first name is a last name. So he is reversed.

An excellent point.

Jackson Herring		2010-11-09 02:40:02 PM

I Said: Much like the average voter thinks: Earmarks suck, unless they're for my state. Then they're cool.

Socialism for me, but not for thee

Lando Lincoln		2010-11-09 02:40:45 PM

Dubai Vol: Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

So, you're calling 80% of the GOP freaking morons? That's not very nice. Accurate, but not nice.

mrjared		2010-11-09 02:41:18 PM

The real point is that earmarks are a stupid thing to be angry about.

meat0918		2010-11-09 02:44:58 PM

It makes one wonder how the Tea Party is going to react...

Tickle Mittens		2010-11-09 02:45:32 PM

farkstorm: He is allowed to reverse himself because his last name is a first name and his first name is a last name. So he is reversed.

Sorry, this logic has a superficial internal consistancy to it. So, I'm pretty sure you're a communist trying to destroy real America through wiccan gay baby marriges. Better luck next time, comrade.

Lando Lincoln		2010-11-09 02:45:43 PM

meat0918: It makes one wonder how the Tea Party is going to react...

Like they actually care.

meat0918		2010-11-09 02:46:36 PM

Lando Lincoln: meat0918: It makes one wonder how the Tea Party is going to react...

Like they actually care.

Some do... like the ones that call Boehnor a RINO.

LouDobbsAwaaaay		2010-11-09 02:49:46 PM

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

/bootstrap

Smidge204		2010-11-09 02:53:31 PM

RANDOM PAUL!

satanscock		2010-11-09 02:55:10 PM

Earmark are inserted into a bill without any review or hearing.

Rand Paul said he would advocate for Kentucky's interests as long as its done transparently at the committee level.

Being against earmarks doesn't mean you wouldn't persuade others in congress to consider projects in your state.

kapaso		2010-11-09 02:55:37 PM

Dubai Vol: Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

Earmarks are one percent of the budget, and earmarks=/=pork. Anyone wasting their time even talking about earmarks is an idiot, and the politicians who use it as a campaign issue are cynical assholes who are playing you people with your hands up for idiots. How pathetic that this is what American politics has devolved to: even the people who bother to care about politics are so ignorant that they waste their time and energy on a complete non-issue. Congratulations, you already ARE an Idiocracy.

Earmarks as a percentage of the budget are insignificant, but often they are used to reward certain companies or industries for campaign contributions. The earmarks that corrupt the markets in favor of big, well connected players are a problem, not a huge problem like our foreign policy or military spending, but they are still something that should be addressed.

sprawl15		2010-11-09 02:57:01 PM

That's the thing I like about Rand Paul. He's honest.

Aarontology		2010-11-09 02:58:27 PM

Wendy's Chili: I usually admire congress critters who don't earmark, but here's a guy who will shill for every special interest under the sun, a guy who handed out paychecks from the tobacco lobby to his fellow Republican cronies on the floor of the House, but refuses to fund projects that will actually help his constituency.

Well yeah. He's bought and paid for, but he's not a total hypocrite. I'll give credit where credit is due.

Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare		2010-11-09 03:00:46 PM

Hey Tea Baggers how's that Real Change working for you?

rnld		2010-11-09 03:01:12 PM

Wendy's Chili: Aarontology: Boehner, while being a jackass in almost everything else, actually sticks by his principles and refuses to get earmarks for his district.

I usually admire congress critters who don't earmark, but here's a guy who will shill for every special interest under the sun, a guy who handed out paychecks from the tobacco lobby to his fellow Republican cronies on the floor of the House, but refuses to fund projects that will actually help his constituency.

There is also a difference in asking for earmarks for an entire state vs one district.

sweetmelissa31		2010-11-09 03:01:57 PM

make me some tea:
What I want to know is why hasn't Rand Paul fixed everything yet?

Welcome to the Paul Recession.

GoldSpider		2010-11-09 03:02:52 PM

So if he refuses the money, would Democrats praise him for sticking to his principles? Or accuse him of hating whomever the money was intended for?

Lando Lincoln		2010-11-09 03:03:49 PM

satanscock: Earmark are inserted into a bill without any review or hearing.

Rand Paul said he would advocate for Kentucky's interests as long as its done transparently at the committee level.

Being against earmarks doesn't mean you wouldn't persuade others in congress to consider projects in your state.

From Rand Paul's campaign website:

"Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. 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."

Earmarks are already transparent, thanks to Senator Obama's efforts to get a database established, letting everyone know who asked for what.

So...if Rand Paul is FOR earmarks but AGAINST the non-transparent process, then Obama already had him covered years ago.

sprawl15		2010-11-09 03:04:35 PM

GoldSpider: So if he refuses the money, would Democrats praise him for sticking to his principles? Or accuse him of hating whomever the money was intended for?

Both.

yakmans_dad		2010-11-09 03:05:01 PM

Thoguh: Jesus people, this is a complaint everyone always says about Ron Paul too and they are totally missing the point. This isn't hypocritical. Whether or not they want earmarks they don't have the power to turn them off today. So since earmarks are a current fact of life they work to get the system changed. However, in the meantime Kentucky taxpayers are funding those earmarks, so until the system is changed it is not remotely hypocritical to make sure they get that money back.

I think that speed limits are set slower than they should be to raise ticket revenue. I'd like to see that change and have even worked to make that happen. However, in the meantime I stick to the current speedlimit. Does that make me a hypocrite?

You used a lot of words to call them both grandstanders.

benpatient		2010-11-09 03:05:50 PM

Thoguh:
I think that speed limits are set slower than they should be to raise ticket revenue. I'd like to see that change and have even worked to make that happen. However, in the meantime I stick to the current speedlimit. Does that make me a hypocrite?

yes.

that's like saying that you're pro life, but because abortion is currently legal, you're going to go have an abortion.

Lando Lincoln		2010-11-09 03:06:56 PM

GoldSpider: So if he refuses the money, would Democrats praise him for sticking to his principles?

I would totally praise him for standing by his principles, even if his principles are dumb.

John the Magnificent		2010-11-09 03:07:09 PM

depmode98		2010-11-09 03:07:53 PM

Hey Tea Baggers, hows that change working out for you?

MFAWG		2010-11-09 03:08:18 PM

Thoguh: cameroncrazy1984: Did you just compare earmarks to the speed limit? Are you farking retarded?

Bad example, sure, but the fact is that they can either play the game while they try to change it, or sit on the outside and make zero impact. I don't see any hypocracy in bringing back the tax money their consituents already lost while they work towards the stated goal of ending earmarks and reducing the size of government.

You think they're going to change it? Didn't they have six years to change it all they want?

I remember when it was Libruls that were divorced from reality.

FangBanger		2010-11-09 03:09:23 PM

mpirooz		2010-11-09 03:09:42 PM

John the Magnificent: Hint: It's not about earmarks, it's about integrity.

Nailed it.

John the Magnificent		2010-11-09 03:09:46 PM

John the Magnificent: Dubai Vol: Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

Earmarks are one percent of the budget, and earmarks=/=pork. Anyone wasting their time even talking about earmarks is an idiot, and the politicians who use it as a campaign issue are cynical assholes who are playing you people with your hands up for idiots. How pathetic that this is what American politics has devolved to: even the people who bother to care about politics are so ignorant that they waste their time and energy on a complete non-issue. Congratulations, you already ARE an Idiocracy.

Raise your hand if you just voted for a guy who said he wants to restore honesty to Government and would stand by his principals no matter what the "establishment" said.

Hint: It's not about earmarks, it's about integrity.

America... you've been had. Again.

And while he's standing by his principals, perhaps they can remind him what a principle is. He has apparently forgotten.

GoldSpider		2010-11-09 03:11:07 PM

benpatient: that's like saying that you're pro life, but because abortion is currently legal, you're going to go have an abortion.

That about sums it up.

Worst.Fark handle. ever.		2010-11-09 03:12:26 PM

So tell me, you scooter-riding fatasses. What do you think of your Teabag Hero now?

yakmans_dad		2010-11-09 03:13:03 PM

John the Magnificent: John the Magnificent: Dubai Vol: Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

Earmarks are one percent of the budget, and earmarks=/=pork. Anyone wasting their time even talking about earmarks is an idiot, and the politicians who use it as a campaign issue are cynical assholes who are playing you people with your hands up for idiots. How pathetic that this is what American politics has devolved to: even the people who bother to care about politics are so ignorant that they waste their time and energy on a complete non-issue. Congratulations, you already ARE an Idiocracy.

Raise your hand if you just voted for a guy who said he wants to restore honesty to Government and would stand by his principals no matter what the "establishment" said.

Hint: It's not about earmarks, it's about integrity.

America... you've been had. Again.

And while he's standing by his principals, perhaps they can remind him what a principle is. He has apparently forgotten.

Principals mean letting doctors get huge amounts for that terrible encroachment on human liberty and dignity, Medicare, because doctors work hard. (Did I mention that Rand is a doctor? You see: that's what makes it a principle rather than a rationalization. Doctors have principles. The rest of us have rationalizations.)

whidbey		2010-11-09 03:13:04 PM

RAND PAUL believes in property rights.

RAND PAUL.

mrshowrules		2010-11-09 03:13:38 PM

Dubai Vol: Raise your hand if you consider earmarks an important issue.

If your hand is up, you are a freaking moron.

Earmarks are one percent of the budget, and earmarks=/=pork. Anyone wasting their time even talking about earmarks is an idiot, and the politicians who use it as a campaign issue are cynical assholes who are playing you people with your hands up for idiots. How pathetic that this is what American politics has devolved to: even the people who bother to care about politics are so ignorant that they waste their time and energy on a complete non-issue. Congratulations, you already ARE an Idiocracy.

You are missing the big picture. I'll try and explain why ear marks are bad. Not the biggest problem by far but still an important problem.

I have a bill for a Government program to train cats as helper animals to lazy teenagers at a cost of $100M. I have a 48 votes but I need 50 votes. I tack on two $2M earmarks to buy two more votes.

What did those earmarks cost the taxpayer? $4M or $104M? Think about it before you call people morons to quickly.

Earmarks aren't the pork, they are the grease. Bills should be able to stand on their own merit. Omnibus bills are OK. Take a bunch of bills by category and combine them and vote on the whole. Don't tack on riders to pass bills that should pass in the first place (regardless of which party is doing it).

Zasteva		2010-11-09 03:14:31 PM

benpatient: Thoguh:
I think that speed limits are set slower than they should be to raise ticket revenue. I'd like to see that change and have even worked to make that happen. However, in the meantime I stick to the current speedlimit. Does that make me a hypocrite?

yes.

that's like saying that you're pro life, but because abortion is currently legal, you're going to go have an abortion.

Which actually happens. Heard an interview with a woman who worked in an abortion clinic, in which she described how the same people who were picketing her clinic would end up in there for an abortion when they got pregnant. Some of them would go back on the picket line later.

In one case she refused to perform an abortion for someone from the picket line, because the woman said she still believed it was murder and that she wanted it done anyway.

badLogic		2010-11-09 03:17:22 PM

Has he made any statements on whether or not he is going to place a hold on the debt ceiling bill? That will be the put up or shut up moment.

Groover McToober		2010-11-09 03:18:34 PM

I think if the headline has RAND PAUL in it, the whole thread is derped from the very start.

Close2TheEdge		2010-11-09 03:28:35 PM

Where's the outrage, FARK INDEPENDENTS? Huh? This is direct hypocrisy. Direct refusal to live up to the Tea Party ideals. Where is the farking outrage here? Why aren't you calling out for Rand Paul to remain true to his word?

We are all waiting.

dualplains		2010-11-09 03:30:24 PM

GoldSpider: So if he refuses the money, would Democrats praise him for sticking to his principles? Or accuse him of hating whomever the money was intended for?

What would it matter? He'd have fulfilled a campaign promise!

Of course, that alone would get him drummed out of the party.

ChimpMitten		2010-11-09 03:31:10 PM

mrshowrules:
I have a bill for a Government program to train cats as helper animals to lazy teenagers at a cost of $100M. I have a 48 votes but I need 50 votes. I tack on two $2M earmarks to buy two more votes.

That isn't an earmark. An earmark would be saying that $2M of the $100M needs to go to Cat Training Center of Greater Bumblefark. You described a rider, which is different than an earmark.

And to get into the bad analogy throw down, I think this more like saying how awful food stamps are, then when times get hard start using them, only to complain about how no one helped you afterwards.

\I'm looking at you Mr. Nelson.

apeiron242		2010-11-09 03:32:54 PM

Your pork and ear marks are taking money from my pet project!

TheOther		2010-11-09 03:36:38 PM

FangBanger: However, in the meantime Kentucky taxpayers are funding those earmarks, so until the system is changed it is not remotely hypocritical to make sure they get that money back.

Stoopid Libruls can't even calculate simple P/L.

Goodfella		2010-11-09 03:38:23 PM

Randy Paul is just going to do in the senate what his old man has been doing for so many years in congress:

1. Pack bills that are sure to pass full of pork for your district/state.

2. Vote against the bill on grounds that you just hate pork so much.

3. Watch the bill pass because it already had more than enough votes to pass.

4. Proclaim to the world that you are holding to your morals against the evil dastardly earmarks.

5. Profit!

brantgoose		2010-11-09 03:39:37 PM

Hey, Rand Paul!

Earmark these!

I hope you read that with a Brooklyn accent.

Close2TheEdge		2010-11-09 03:40:08 PM

TheOther: FangBanger: However, in the meantime Kentucky taxpayers are funding those earmarks, so until the system is changed it is not remotely hypocritical to make sure they get that money back.

Stoopid Libruls can't even calculate simple P/L.

Bite me. The Tea Party ran on their strident opposition to earmarks BASED ON PRINCIPLE. You can't claim after the fact that just because everybody else is doing it, I'll do it too until I get rid of it.

Or maybe you can. Because as we are all finding out, the Teabaggers are a bunch of lying weasels.

Tommy Moo		2010-11-09 03:40:30 PM

Paul's constituents are paying federal income tax to support the earmarks for other districts. It is not hypocrisy to want to end all earmarks concomitantly, but to continue to request them for your district until that day comes. He wants to move from the "my people pay for and receive earmarks" quadrant to the "no one pays for or receives earmarks" quadrant without passing through "my people pay for but receive no earmarks."

Dubai Vol		2010-11-09 03:42:44 PM

mrshowrules: I'll try and explain why ear marks are bad. Not the biggest problem by far but still an important problem.

I have a bill for a Government program to train cats as helper animals to lazy teenagers at a cost of $100M. I have a 48 votes but I need 50 votes. I tack on two $2M earmarks to buy two more votes.

What did those earmarks cost the taxpayer? $4M or $104M? Think about it before you call people morons to quickly.

Earmarks aren't the pork, they are the grease. Bills should be able to stand on their own merit. Omnibus bills are OK. Take a bunch of bills by category and combine them and vote on the whole. Don't tack on riders to pass bills that should pass in the first place (regardless of which party is doing it).

Granted, you have a much better understanding than 99% of voters, I still think you're treating a symptom. Earmarks are just the tactic used for the backroom deal etc. Take away earmarks, they'll find another way. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Doctors often get this wrong: if you treat a PERSON'S symptoms, the body will in time heal itself. Congress has no such healing ability. Neither do cars. 8D

And the issue as presented to the average voter is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

Corvus		2010-11-09 03:49:08 PM

Lets see before even seated in congress:

Full Rollback of "Obamacare" - FAILED
No Earmarks - FAILED
Not adding to the Deficit - FAILED

Pretty much all of their campaign promises they have gone back on even before being sworn in.

Wow that must be some new record!

Displayed 50 of 174 comments