WTF is this bullshit.

Ron Paul gave a good reason for why he liked Don Young:

*he supported the Liberty Amendment, which would bar the federal government from operating any business-type activities and abolish the federal income tax.

Paul wrote:

“Few members of Congress have shown the insight to understand the importance of this sweeping legislation to restrain the federal government, and even fewer have shown the courage to co-sponsor this bill,” Paul said. “Don is one of those.”

This cannot be understated. An amendment to abolish the income tax and prohibit the federal government from engaging in business-type activity (for example the disaster Fannie and Freddie May government-businesses) is tremendous.

Furthermore, Ron Paul did not endorse Don Young, because of Young’s support for the Iraq war and other programs:

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalpercep…googlenews_wsj

—————
Richard Viguerie, one of the enduring figures of the far right, pounced on Mr. Paul, attacking him for putting “pork ahead of principle.”

Yes, Mr. Paul responds to a cry for help from a fellow member of his own party and gets snarled at by another political animal. But Mr. Paul’s not a big booster of Mr. Young, either. Turns out, he deliberately didn’t try to help too much.

“Representative Young came and asked Dr. Paul for a whole lot of stuff,” said Jesse Benton, spokesman for Paul’s Liberty PAC. “He respectfully declined.”
————–

So Paul did not endorse him or give him any money from his Campaign for Liberty warchest.

One more thing, regarding earmarks, they do NOT increase federal spending. Earmarks simply allocate money that has already been designated to be spent.

Great job of playing hide the ball, and y’all fell for it.

In the fall, Young will be running against….

“Ethan Berkowitz”

That’s right, this has nothing to do with earmarks, or the war, it’s about

THE WORLDWIDE ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!!!

hahahahahahahahahahahah

Thanks again, paulbots, for joining a long line of bigots, conspiracy theorists, and joo-haters who give libertarianism a bad name…..

For one, Ron Paul does not REQUEST any earmarks at all. The earmarks are merely passed along. His CONSTITUENTS request the earmarks and he then honors that request and submits them as amendments or requests to the committee….

When it comes up for a vote, he votes NO to the spending bill.

People act like the spending requests are his idea. They’re not. He doesn’t like earmarks but if a spending bill is passed without them, then the distribution of funds are controlled by the agencies and can be spent on virtually anything.

The earmark thing is a non-issue.

Assume I run a government agency trying to get funds. I need $x amount to run my agency.

In the budget, I am assigned my $x but contained within that appropriation are $y in earmarks in which my agency is required to spend a portion of that $x. Because of this I am now underfunded in other parts of the organization and cannot fulfill my mission.

So next year…I submit a new funding request that is $x + $y +$z. That way my agency can run properly ($x), handle the shrimp marketing that Ron Paul wants my agency to pay for ($y), and have a little extra from which new earmarks can be drawn from instead of my operating budget ($z).

In short, the idea that earmarks represent money that is going to be spent anyway isn’t very persuasive. It’s an excuse to lard up a district.

And speaking of principle…what possible principle allows Ron Paul to claim status as holding true to only Constitutionally-prescribed spending and yet submit earmarks to build a wing on a private hospital? He has a rep as highly principled, but when push comes to shove he has shown himself to be disturbingly mercenary.

Always logical and truthful..Who else out of DC is?

I like how he digs up the roots of problems..as an insider, he know’s more than you and I of schemes and witchhunts..

If they get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.

Anyway, Ron Paul is not always right, but is there anyone better in Congress at the moment?

If we did away with earmarks, it doesn’t mean that the money appropriated to them won’t be spent. Earmarking is a way for Congress to divide the budget. If earmarks were not made, then the executive branch would be making decisions on how to appropriate money, which is arguably unconstitutional.

Given this, and the fact that I don’t really see anything repulsive with the argument of “If the money’s going to be spent, and if every other Congressman is making earmark requests, then it’s not fair to my constituents for me not to do it, too,” I understand Congressman Paul’s perspective. However, even as one of his supporters, I disagree with it in principle. Personally, I think everyone should exercise restraint in one’s own district with regard to requesting money if we’re ever going to have serious restraint in spending on macro, but it’s unrealistic that everyone will do so at this point, and it doesn’t make much political sense to risk losing the election back home if your seat and visibility are important to the building of the movement you’re trying to lead. The good news is he’s consistently casting votes against the total appropriations bills and unbalanced budgets, many of which are hugely politically incorrect and for which he gets savaged in the media by opponents at home. He’s not going all the way by not making earmark requests, but again: earmarks aren’t un-Constitutional (and in fact are a more Constitutional way of appropriating money than the alternative, which is basically tyranny of the executive), and he still takes significant political risks by voting against things like the Hurricane Katrina aid in standing up for the principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

I do disagree with his endorsement of Young, but he’s also endorsed candidates who don’t share his views and agenda on other issues. Young may be bad on spending issues, but he’s also been a co-sponsor of Dr. Paul’s Liberty Amendment, which would eliminate the 16th Amendment and Income Tax in its entirety. That’s a pretty big step for someone to take politically. Regarding other candidates he’s endorsed, there’s Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, who is a major supporter of the Iraq War, but who nonetheless share’s Dr. Paul’s views on national soverignty. The country isn’t going to be full of candidates like B.J. Lawson in North Carolina who share Dr. Paul’s views on all of the issues and are good candidates who have a chance of winning, so at this point he’s got to pick and choose to some degree based on people who he deems will be good to work with on certain issues. It’s not perfect, but it’s politically smart, and I would argue necessary at this point. Ron Paul is incredibly principled in the ideas and policies he promotes, but he’s also a shrewd and pragmatic politician who is grounded in reality.

So, Ron Paul has gone against both the RLC and the LP at the same time. And on top of that, the libetarian-leaning Club for Growth, founded by former Cato scholar Stephen Moore. Quite an accomplishment for a supposed “libertarian,” like Paul.

No ones perfect. Match Paul’s record with any other congressman and you have a saint. Its really not a huge deal. Normally his endorsements are pretty good.

If anyone here never disagrees with Ron Paul than they obviously are just followers. I, for one, will not make any excuse for this terrible endorsement. I will continue to support Paul in areas I agree with him on though…which are many.

As for the earmarks, not a big deal. At least the money is being spent to benefit taxpayers/districts instead of padding Washington’s pockets. It would be nice if he never spent any but the man does need to be voted back in. You can’t run on “vote for me and I will do nothing for you”.

He’s not refunding money to taxpayers. He’s spending it. He’s directing the flow of stolen money away from the politically powerless taxpayers and toward the politically powerful.

It seems to me he’s attempting to redirect as much money into his district as he can. If the money is going to be spent anyway, why wouldn’t he attempt to get it for his constituents?

Like I said, I have a problem with that. Thanks to Ron Paul, some people who might not have a vested interest in big government now have such an interest. Maybe Ron Paul can’t stop the money from being spent, but he doesn’t have to actively participate in and reinforce the system of government spoils.

What is he supposed to do? Tell the people in his district “I’m sorry, since I don’t believe that taxing you so much and spending it isn’t right, so I’m going to make sure that NONE of the money you’re sending to Washington comes back here.”?

Maybe if enough people in congress voted agains these earmark laden bills in the first place (like Ron Paul does) we wouldn’t have this problem to begin with.

A million suckers born every minute.

mike

mike

Yeah, why on Earth would you have done that, it’s not like you claim to be a (small-l) libertarian…

You ask, “if the feds ARE TAKING OUR MONEY ANYWAYS…so why wouldnt I want my representatives to bring as much of that money back to my district as possible?” If the money was stolen from you, what difference does it make whether the recipient lives in your district or outside of it?

mike