Monday, March 02, 2009

The Hypocrisy of Ron Paul

This is why I have practically no respect for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

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.

(Houston Chronicle)

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.

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."

After reading about Ron Paul and his latest earmarks, I went to Citizens Against Government Waste to check his record in the 2008 Pig Book. I wasn't exactly prepared for what I saw.

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
Ron Paul had more earmark money than any of the Oklahoma delegation except John Sullivan. Paul had more earmark money than Fallin and Boren combined, and Fallin and Cole combined, one million dollars less than Boren and Cole combined, and the same amount as Fallin and Lucas combined.

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.


  1. Wow, something new is learned every day. Ron Paul is certainly a very vocal member of Congress, but his record speaks for itself.


    You want accountability for value? I'm down with that! by not by going back to what didn't work. You want inflation? Look at the Weimar Republic in Germany... and it was "Gold" that did it. We need leadership with ideas... and charisma to push it. Ron Paul is reacting to Richard Nixon... am I the only one who believes the solutions to this era are because we are looking at things right now!

    since when is the Constitution a cult? It is a social contract. crikey! a great agreement... that some people have gone Cabalistic on. Where is the "logic" in that? Paul says he is against a virtual economy... but the very heart of "gold" is virtual. the very heart of a social contract is virtual as well. you want real? you want real exchange value and yet you set your foundation on rare rocks.

    revolutions are not based on old rhetoric. Paul might sound snappy... but having a big mouth is not understanding what is going on around you. Ayn Rand's ghost is knocking on Ron Paul's door. she says he didn't get it. there isn't method. if pure logic were so easy we wouldn't need leaders

    We are wasting creative people's time with teasing when original thought is exactly what we need right now. we can't get real thought out "Change" if we have fallen in love with a man who bastardized Austrian Economics with diversional arguments. How about Iceland? Notice Ron Paul doesn't talk about what went down there. The media is using Paul as a tool to radicalize the GOP. Ron Paul (An eccentric old man repeating thirty year old ideas) knows that, but he is so vain with CNN it is disgusting. The modern Bugs Bunny on a news network owned by Warner Brothers. "What's up doc?" Paul's logic had just been put into paradox with a cult used to destroy the GOP with "Pablum". Get a job working at an old age home if you feel empathy for those who are looking to repeat themselves. Everything the man says is cloud nine and isn't amusing to me to see people parroting bad decisions.

  3. What escapes your notice is that earmarks do not increase the federal budget by one cent. That money still gets spent in any case, only if not through earmarks, through a Washington bureau.

    Beyond the (overblown) earmark issue, Paul always votes Constitutionally. You may complain about earmark requests, but I'll take a rep with lots of earmark requests but who votes right over someone who is hawkish fiscally but votes readily for things like the REAL ID Act, Medicare expansions, bailouts, etc.

    I guarantee you that some of the things Mary Fallin has voted for have cost us hundreds if not thousands of times more than any of Ron Paul's earmarks. Yet I don't see you posting an "expose" of Fallin.

    Heck, Reagan raised many taxes during his terms too, but I don't see you lambasting him. What's your beef with Ron Paul? Why the double standard? Talk about hypocrisy!

  4. What gives? This is the only weak issue you have with Dr. Paul? At least he voted against the pork-laden bailout, unlike Sen. Coburn. I see you're carrying water for Huckabee, the same guy who is for expanding government into just about every area of our lives, and for increasing unconstitutional spending all over the place. Where's the consistency?

  5. An other article trying to bash Ron Paul on earmarks. It's amazing how clueless people are when it comes to the subject of earmarks. An earmark just designates where appropriated money should be spent. If congress does not earmark how and where the money should be spent then the executive branch decides. that means the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch control where the money is spent not your elected representative.

    Ron Paul always votes against the appropriation bill but they pass anyway. So since the money will be spent anyway you might as well spend it where you think it will do the most good.

    but I will explain this so even the most simplest minded person can get it.

    Let's say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom's basement playing video games. It's getting late, and everyone is getting hungry. Ronnie says he doesn't want to get dinner, since he brought a hoagie, but everyone else wants to order pizza. Ron is outvoted and they decide to order pizza.

    When it comes time to order, the gang collects they money from everyone, including Ron. Ron says he brought food, so he didn't think he should pay. Tough luck, Ron... we all voted, and you're paying. "Fine," says Ron, "But I want a white pizza with onions."

    "Wait, you said you didn't want pizza! Are you going to be having pizza with us now? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?"

    "Well, I voted to not get pizza, but since you already have my money, and there's nothing I can do about that, I might as well state my preference for the pizza that comes. It's the only way I'm going to get the best use out of the money I've lost. I'd much rather keep the money and not have the pizza, but to avoid the pizza out of principle is simply cheating myself."


PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME when commenting. Anonymous comments may be rejected if NOT accompanied by a name.

Comments are welcome, but remember - commenting on my blog is a privilege. Do not abuse that privilege, or your comment will be deleted.

Thank you for joining in the discussion at! Your opinion is appreciated!