Ron Paul thinks he can get away with submitting earmarks, because he doesn't vote for them. What absolute hypocrisy. In his interview on Meet the Press, he compares earmarks to tax credits.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Ron Paul vehemently denounced the $410 billion catch-all spending bill approved last week by the House of Representatives.
But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its cost.
Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Here's a great article on the issue by Joseph Farrah on WorldNetDaily, written in late 2007. I'm sure Farrah took all sorts of grief from the fanatical supporters of the congressman (as will I, more than likely), but he is absolutely right.
In his column, Farrah says, "I just simply didn't know that Ron Paul plays the Washington racket just like the rest of the gang. The only difference is he has figured out a system of plausible deniability for himself – a way he can still maintain his image of incorruptibility and integrity, while bringing home the pork to his Texas district with the kind of efficiency that would make Robert Byrd blush." He continues later:
"Paul defended his actions on 'Meet the Press' in spin that would make Bill Clinton proud. 'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' he explained. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'
This is actually as ingenious as it is immoral. Ron Paul knows his vote against his own earmarks for pork is meaningless to the actual outcome. He's going to get his pork because every member of Congress gets his pork. But Ron Paul gets the psychic satisfaction of voting against it – after, of course, he proposed it."
Let us compare the 2008 figures of the Oklahoma representatives and Ron Paul.
- John Sullivan (R, 1st District): 15 projects, $42,300,000
- Dan Boren (D, 2nd District): 11 projects, $10,500,000
- Frank Lucas (R, 3rd District): 24 projects, $17,200,000
- Tom Cole (R, 4th District): 15 projects, $13,200,000
- Marry Fallin (R, 5th District): 13 projects, $5,500,000
- Ron Paul (R, 14th District): 8 projects, $22,700,000
But I forgot. He's never voted for an earmark; he just requests them. Who ever heard of an earmark that didn't get allocated? Reminds me of this debate of Senator Coburn had on the senate floor once regarding an authorization bill. "If it's not appropriated, that's right [Sen. Domenici said if the money is not appropriated, it doesn't cost anything]. But we're not passing these bills on the assumption that they're not going to be appropriated, we're passing these bills on the assumption that they will be appropriated." Earmarks are not submitted with the assumption that they won't be allocated. Ron Paul does not expect his earmarks to fail; he knows that they will pass, because they're earmarks.
Joseph Farrah's column ends with this: "While portraying himself as cleaner than the wind-driven snow, a man standing up against the machine, a courageous freedom fighter, it turns out Ron Paul is just another politician using the system for his own empowerment, his own ego and defending this abuse of the Constitution with his own relativistic moral code."
I concur. On the earmark issue, Congressman Ron Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.