If all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.
Banning earmarks will not change by one penny how much money is allocated by congress in this budget bill. RP correctly indicates that it would move the spending decisions for allocated budget dollars to the administration. The entire budget should be earmarked with politician's fingerprints on each item. Dr. Paul is pragmatic enough to know a "pure" Libertarian has zero chance of being listened to, much less elected.
Taxpayers send Millions of dollars to Washington DC, and pray that some of the money is returned. Ron Paul is just doing his JOB representing the people that put him in office. I wish all our representatives truly worked for us the same way. Most represent the Special Interests that payed for heir campains. Ron Paul 2008
I wish Ron Paul was a more eloquent speaker sometimes... but he is still correct in this matter. Its exactly like he said, should people GIVE BACK their social security money? No! We want to change the system, but there is no point in trying to give that money back before then. As for the earmarks: He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Duh.
omg, they were just trying to dig something on Dr.Paul trying to "catch" him on something. How come they aren't showing those pictures of rudy in a dress, huh? The media is attacking him because he is RIGHT!!!!!! you people are completely ignorant
he votes against the government having the right to tax so highly in the first place, so of course once they ALREADY have the money and hang it over his head he's going to try to get it back Ron Paul 08 !!!!
The whole earmark controversy is a non-issue, a smokescreen to divert attention away from real issues. We need a politician's or group of politician's fingerprints on all spending items so you, the media, can both challenge and inform. Omnibus budget bills should be banned. In addition, many federal legislators rightly believe that those tax dollars retrieved for their constituents in the form of earmarks from the federal government should not have left their state in the first place.
You can't fault a politician for being pragmatic. I would. RP loads spending bills up with earmarks for his constituents and proceeds to vote against the spending bill. Where's the conflict? Only a moron (like my Rep) wouldn't cover both bases.
If all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.
Correct! It is nice to see someone posting some comments that actually make sense.
*and succeeds
lol
Banning earmarks will not change by one penny how much money is allocated by congress in this budget bill. RP correctly indicates that it would move the spending decisions for allocated budget dollars to the administration. The entire budget should be earmarked with politician's fingerprints on each item.
Dr. Paul is pragmatic enough to know a "pure" Libertarian has zero chance of being listened to, much less elected.
That was not a fair attack on Paul.
The problem is well understood, but
unfortunately this will confuse people.
It's an impossible game.
wheres the whole clip?
Mmm, wall street journal; Murdoch's new toy.
Also, just wondering, does Russert come at everyone this hard? It seemed like he was interrogating Paul through much of the show.
Taxpayers send Millions of dollars to Washington DC, and pray that some of the money is returned. Ron Paul is just doing his JOB representing the people that put him in office. I wish all our representatives truly worked for us the same way. Most represent the Special Interests that payed for heir campains. Ron Paul 2008
I wish Ron Paul was a more eloquent speaker sometimes... but he is still correct in this matter. Its exactly like he said, should people GIVE BACK their social security money? No! We want to change the system, but there is no point in trying to give that money back before then. As for the earmarks: He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Duh.
omg, they were just trying to dig something on Dr.Paul trying to "catch" him on something. How come they aren't showing those pictures of rudy in a dress, huh? The media is attacking him because he is RIGHT!!!!!! you people are completely ignorant
he votes against the government having the right to tax so highly in the first place, so of course once they ALREADY have the money and hang it over his head he's going to try to get it back
Ron Paul 08 !!!!
The whole earmark controversy is a non-issue, a smokescreen to divert attention away from real issues.
We need a politician's or group of politician's fingerprints on all spending items so you, the media, can both challenge and inform. Omnibus budget bills should be banned.
In addition, many federal legislators rightly believe that those tax dollars retrieved for their constituents in the form of earmarks from the federal government should not have left their state in the first place.
You can't fault a politician for being pragmatic. I would. RP loads spending bills up with earmarks for his constituents and proceeds to vote against the spending bill. Where's the conflict? Only a moron (like my Rep) wouldn't cover both bases.
um, do you have any clue about what you're talking about?
this interviewer is being SO dishonest.
Tim is a shill I lost respect for him and Media GO RON GO
elitist...