Now I see this news article, only two weeks old which is but yesterday according to my rather relaxed timeline:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Congressman Ron Paul contributed to its size.
Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle.
The so-call "omnibus" bill passed the House on a 245-178 vote, with only 16 Republicans in support. It was chock-full of congressmen's pet projects for their districts.
Second to Paul in the Houston delegation was Republican Congressman John Culberson, who tallied $63.6 million in earmarks.
Democrats were not far behind, with Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee adding $50.1 million and $37.6 million respectively.
Messages left today by The Associated Press at the offices of Paul, Green and Jackson Lee seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Only one Houston-area congressman - Republican Michael McCaul, of Austin - was earmark-free in the House bill.
No further comment is really required.
4 comments:
I saw an interview with Paul regarding something similar. Here was his reasoning [heavily paraphrased, as it's been a while]:
"The voters in my district elect me to represent them in Congress. They ask me to try to get them pork. So I submit a bill asking for pork for my constituents ... and when it comes up for vote, I vote against it because it's not authorized by the Constitution."
This is his way of fulfilling his duty to his constituents ("represent me and my wants in Congress") and still upholding the Constitution.
I'm not judging his justification one way or another, mind. Just saying that I understand (not necessarily condone, but understand) his reasoning.
I applaud Ron Paul's use of earmarks.
Congress is supposed to determine spending, not the executive. These huge omnibus spending bills are just another way for Congress to shirk their jobs.
Ron's Paul's earmarks did not increase the size of the bill by one dollar. They determine how the money is spent, taking that power away from the president and his minions.
Ron Paul votes against these bills even as he inserts earmarks. It is a pragmatic and principled approach. He makes it clear he does not approve of lavish federal spending - but he also doesn't give a carte blanch to the thugs in the white house.
With all due respect, Joel, further comment IS required.
-S
He loads the bills with earmarks for his district, while preaching against earmarks. Then he votes against the bills, knowing that his vote won't matter because spending bills always pass.
Pragmatic? Oh, yes - on that, we agree. Principled? Honestly, I don't see how.
He preaches against unconstitutional spending (which is pretty much all of it) not earmarks, which are perfectly constitutional. I see a principle consistently applied here.
The deadtreedaily article is inaccurate (surprise; Paul did not contribute to the size of the bill, he determined how (some) of the huge amount was to be spent. There is an important distinction.
I've met the man, had dinner with him. He's not as charming as your average pol, but he is a true scholar and a gentleman. He doesn't tolerate fools all that well and cuts to the heart of a matter in a way that is both disconcerting and refreshing. His knowledge of history and free-market economics is unequaled in DC. We could use 400 more like him; we're not likely to get them.
Post a Comment