GOP Threatens To Remove RP From Committees due to faux-earmark nonsense

[menace]

GOP Threatens To Remove Ron Paul From All Committee Assignments!

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana and Ron Paul of Texas have joined Rep. Don Young (AK) in requesting earmarks for the 2011 fiscal year, despite a House Republican caucus vote this month to institute a moratorium on earmarks for one year.
Those members’ committee assignments could be on the line, according to a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner.
“The Leaders expect all House Republican members to comply with the moratorium,” the spokesman, Michael Steel, said in an email. “There will be situations where we have some confusion on how these rules are implemented, but if Members are deliberately breaking the rules, it will be a serious matter and one that the Steering Committee will consider.”

I cannot wait for the word back to the Tea Party community that Ron Paul just got tossed off of all his committees. I’m sure that would energize this new base.
The thing is, if you listen to Paul’s spokesman, he’s pretty much right on this issue:
Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said he thinks Washington already extracts too much money from his constituents, and “part of his job is to work hard in Washington, D.C., to get that money back to those constituents in any form that he can.” She said Paul also believes that earmarking is more transparent than the regular budget process because you know exactly where the money goes and that it doesn’t affect the total amount appropriated by one dime.

Yes, this conflicts with libertarian ideology in part, but not in the whole. I don’t think almost any attention should be paid to the ridiculous earmark issue, which accounts for around 1% of the federal budget. But to the extent there is attention, Paul is correct. No earmark affects total appropriations. And failing to earmark does leave appropriations up to the federal government and the related executive agencies to determine where the money goes.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/01/gop-threatens-to-remove-ron-paul-from-all-committee-assignments/

[jofortruth]

They can't stand INTELLIGENT and INDEPENDENT Congressmen who think for themselves. However, they love the idiots they can manipulate and get to tow the line!

 

[larsonstdoc]

  They don't want the truth to get out.  The truth is there is only one party in Congress (The Democans aka The Republicrats) and Ron Paul doesn't belong to it.

[jofortruth]

I would say this exposes the REPUBLICANS as also being part of the Obama NWO agenda because the reject truth and support lies! Wouldn't you? Of course, many of us know they work in tandem from one admin to the next and are run by the same PUPPET MASTERS!

These guys are not leaders, they are followers of the unelected men behind the curtains that think they get the right to rule this country and the world, for that matter!

So, we must kick just about every last one of them out (except Ron Paul and a few more of his group) of our Congress and start over!

[chris jones]

The two party system does not exist, it is a fantasy, an illusion fed to the masses.

There are that minority in office who maintain their humanity, they have been and will continue to be pariahs to the sold outs. RP has been shunned for years, the political lackeys must shun men such as RP, those of conscience are a threat to these freaks of nature.

[adissenter2]

one of the comments in the article

to many people here still don’t understand what an earmark is so let me explain so even a moron can get it.

Let’s say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom’s basement playing some D&D. 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.”

and another one lmao

The teabaggers will know how to feel abouit this as soon as Rush tells them.

[adissenter2]

Three Congressmen Defy GOP Earmark Ban, Face Losing Committee Seats
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/three-congressmen-defy-gop-earmark-ban-face-losing-committee-seats.php

Three Republican congressmen have defied their party's decision to ban all earmarks for one year, a move that could cost them their committee posts.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Reps. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana and Ron Paul of Texas have joined Rep. Don Young (AK) in requesting earmarks for the 2011 fiscal year, despite a House Republican caucus vote this month to institute a moratorium on earmarks for one year.

Those members' committee assignments could be on the line, according to a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner.

"The Leaders expect all House Republican members to comply with the moratorium," the spokesman, Michael Steel, said in an email. "There will be situations where we have some confusion on how these rules are implemented, but if Members are deliberately breaking the rules, it will be a serious matter and one that the Steering Committee will consider."

Cao sits on three committees, and is the deputy ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. Paul sits on two committees, and is the ranking member on the Financial Services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. Young is the ranking member of the Resources Committee and sits on two other committees.

You can see Cao's requests, including $45 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to mantain levees, here.

Paul's office told the Times-Picayune that, because he believes the federal government takes too much money from citizens, he considers it his job to get back as much as possible. You can see his earmark requests here.

Young said in a statement that he wouldn't comply with the ban. "I am elected to serve my constituents, and as long as they continue to request federal funding for their projects of interest, then I will continue to do my best to accommodate them," he said. Young's requests are here (PDF).

[Valerius]

The whole earmark thing has always been a big red herring. Right on cue, the right has started squaking "ear mark, ear mark" because the talking heads have told them that's what they need to be concerned about. Half of them don't even know what it means.

[Kilika]

Wait, let me get this straight; The rebulicans claim they are not going to do any earmarks for a year? And Ron Paul is wanting earmarks? Isn't that opposite of what we want? Why would Paul want earmarks? Has he forgotten what they are? This makes no sense.

Earmarks are nothing more than a tactic to get legislation passed under the cover of another bill, because the earmark won't pass on it's own under review. It's an underhanded end-around move. The education part of the health care bill was an earmark, though they typically are legislation that involves money for projects to a specific state. It's still the same tactic.

Paul needs to reconsider his position on earmarks, and attaching unrelated bills on other bills. Passing bills with no oversight or reveiw is plain wrong.

[Freeski]

The whole earmark thing has always been a big red herring. Right on cue, the right has started squaking "ear mark, ear mark" because the talking heads have told them that's what they need to be concerned about. Half of them don't even know what it means.

Agreed. Although it sounds odd on the surface, my understanding of RP's position on earmarks is that the current system has the feds taking so much from his constituents that he will do whatever he can to have some of it returned. He has little choice but to work within the corrupt system on this issue, while focussing his energy on what really matters, namely ending the fed and educating about liberty.

[Freeski]

PS - Screw the GOP and the rest of the slimeballs who keep this BS system alive.

[Kilika]

Agreed. Although it sounds odd on the surface, my understanding of RP's position on earmarks is that the current system has the feds taking so much from his constituents that he will do whatever he can to have some of it returned. He has little choice but to work within the corrupt system on this issue, while focussing his energy on what really matters, namely ending the fed and educating about liberty.

Educating about liberty would be telling them the system is opporating ina corrupt way and should stop immediately or be subject to recall, and baishment from the House And Senate. THAT'S educating about liberty, the freedom of the people to tell their representatives what to do.

Rendering evil for evil will in the end never work. It is a completely wrong tactic to get money back in that manner. You get it back by mandating Congrees simply gives back what is due a state, period. And if they refuse, you remove them from office. THAT'S educating about liberty.

Washington will NEVER change to the will of the public until the public makes Washington change. Those who run Washington will not change on their own as a group left unchecked. But alas, the public sits in anger, ever voting for change, and yet it remains the same.

You know what they say about the definition of insanity!

"But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house [divided] against a house falleth." Luke 11:17 (KJV)

[able]

are you sure this has got nothing to do with some good guys using the ear mark to get end the fed legislation through?

if they cannot use ear marks then perhaps they can control some of the more truthful members???

[Dig]

Agreed. Although it sounds odd on the surface, my understanding of RP's position on earmarks is that the current system has the feds taking so much from his constituents that he will do whatever he can to have some of it returned. He has little choice but to work within the corrupt system on this issue, while focussing his energy on what really matters, namely ending the fed and educating about liberty.

My understanding too. Also he has a civil duty to represent his constituents as a member of the House of Representatives. Although he is a beacon of truth and hope for the nation, his integrity in his employment as a people's servant is unhindered. He represents them with the utmost genuine concern for their well being.

Additionally, he always votes against the bills that leave the country in a deficit. But he makes sure to include their interests in any bill that moves forward (even though he votes against it). He must represent his district and does so with integrity (which is more than can be said about any other politician I can think of).

[donnay]

Wait, let me get this straight; The rebulicans claim they are not going to do any earmarks for a year? And Ron Paul is wanting earmarks? Isn't that opposite of what we want? Why would Paul want earmarks? Has he forgotten what they are? This makes no sense.

Earmarks are nothing more than a tactic to get legislation passed under the cover of another bill, because the earmark won't pass on it's own under review. It's an underhanded end-around move. The education part of the health care bill was an earmark, though they typically are legislation that involves money for projects to a specific state. It's still the same tactic.

Paul needs to reconsider his position on earmarks, and attaching unrelated bills on other bills. Passing bills with no oversight or reveiw is plain wrong.

In Ron Paul's own words:  "...cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

[Valerius]

...Paul needs to reconsider his position on earmarks, and attaching unrelated bills on other bills. Passing bills with no oversight or reveiw is plain wrong.

What oversight or review comes from civil servants and department heads deciding how money already allocated is spent?

[Kilika]

What oversight or review comes from civil servants and department heads deciding how money already allocated is spent?

You want a handful of people with the authority to decide how they spend billions of dollars of the public's money, regardless of Washington's horrendous financial managment history? Are you sure about that? They haven't managed the public's checkbook correctly in decades, yet the public continues to allow it by allowing representatives to do as they please. The public is the check and balance against the actions of representatives. American's have lost sight of that, and now they just sit back and let others do the work and look what it got them.

We the People, the public, are suppose to decide how the money is spent, and then have the representatives make it happen. You don't dump a ton of cash in somebody's lap and say, "Go spend it however you see fit.", as that is asking for exactly what we have right now. People keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome each time.

And I'm sorry to the Ron Paul supporters, but he is dead wrong on earmarks, especially based on the scenario presented in that quote. It makes no sense for there to be enough money available to direct towards an earmark, while going about spending their budget alloted. Why? Because of how government handles their budgets. Spend it all, or the next allowance will be lower. That's how they do it. I saw it first hand in the military.

So that means they are in fact setting aside money for these earmark projects that fall outside their normal budget, otherwise where is the money for an earmark coming from? To spend more next year, you have to submit a budget and ask for it, so there should be no extra money for earmarks if it falls outside normal day-to-day operations of the given agency. OR, they are in fact lying to you to justify their out of control "I'm gonna get mine for my state" attitude. Every state has that attitude because they know it's an open feeding trough in Washington. Grab tha cash when you can kind of attitude, and I can see how it's worked real well for the country. Yeah, great idea Ron, for destroying the country financially.

You don't "cut the number of earmarks", you eliminate them! Period. You cannot spend what you don't have. This country is in huge financial trouble, and people want to keep on spending what we don't have. But wait, we do have it, we got the Federal Reserve that is more than happy to tells us to print more cash, at interest, so they can in turn loan us that cash we just printed! What a concept!

And people wonder why we are borrowing heavily from a communist country that would just assume knock us out rather than help us up. Insanity.

[Dig]

Wait, let me get this straight; The rebulicans claim they are not going to do any earmarks for a year? And Ron Paul is wanting earmarks? Isn't that opposite of what we want? Why would Paul want earmarks? Has he forgotten what they are? This makes no sense.

Earmarks are nothing more than a tactic to get legislation passed under the cover of another bill, because the earmark won't pass on it's own under review. It's an underhanded end-around move. The education part of the health care bill was an earmark, though they typically are legislation that involves money for projects to a specific state. It's still the same tactic.

Paul needs to reconsider his position on earmarks, and attaching unrelated bills on other bills. Passing bills with no oversight or reveiw is plain wrong.

What? He needs to reconsider representing his constitutuents because people like Sarah Palin said so? Just think about it...this is such BS it is beyond ridiculous. It is nuts. Ron Paul is the only member of congress who does not go on junkets, does not take lobbyists money, and gives a portion of his congressional office budget back to the US treasury ever single year.

Accusing him of corruption like they are is the same as when they accused him of being racist. I mean really, this is a way to get him to stop representing his district (which is a bona fide violation of a civil servant's trust).

[Dig]

You want a handful of people with the authority to decide how they spend billions of dollars of the public's money, regardless of Washington's horrendous financial managment history? Are you sure about that? They haven't managed the public's checkbook correctly in decades, yet the public continues to allow it by allowing representatives to do as they please. The public is the check and balance against the actions of representatives. American's have lost sight of that, and now they just sit back and let others do the work and look what it got them.

We the People, the public, are suppose to decide how the money is spent, and then have the representatives make it happen. You don't dump a ton of cash in somebody's lap and say, "Go spend it however you see fit.", as that is asking for exactly what we have right now. People keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome each time.

And I'm sorry to the Ron Paul supporters, but he is dead wrong on earmarks, especially based on the scenario presented in that quote. It makes no sense for there to be enough money available to direct towards an earmark, while going about spending their budget alloted. Why? Because of how government handles their budgets. Spend it all, or the next allowance will be lower. That's how they do it. I saw it first hand in the military.

So that means they are in fact setting aside money for these earmark projects that fall outside their normal budget, otherwise where is the money for an earmark coming from? To spend more next year, you have to submit a budget and ask for it, so there should be no extra money for earmarks if it falls outside normal day-to-day operations of the given agency. OR, they are in fact lying to you to justify their out of control "I'm gonna get mine for my state" attitude. Every state has that attitude because they know it's an open feeding trough in Washington. Grab tha cash when you can kind of attitude, and I can see how it's worked real well for the country. Yeah, great idea Ron, for destroying the country financially.

You don't "cut the number of earmarks", you eliminate them! Period. You cannot spend what you don't have. This country is in huge financial trouble, and people want to keep on spending what we don't have. But wait, we do have it, we got the Federal Reserve that is more than happy to tells us to print more cash, at interest, so they can in turn loan us that cash we just printed! What a concept!

And people wonder why we are borrowing heavily from a communist country that would just assume knock us out rather than help us up. Insanity.

YOU REALLY THINK THAT RON PAUL IS THE REASON FOR THE OUTRAGEOUS BUDGETS?

HE ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THE BILLS.

WHY ARE YOU SO WILLFULLY IGNORANT ABOUT SUCH A COMMON SENSE ISSUE.

THEY ARE SPENDING THE MONEY...HE REPRESENTS A DISTRICT. HE PUTS IN THE APPROPRIATE EARMARKS FOR THAT DISTRICT ON BEHALF OF HIS CONSTITUENTS.

HE VOTES AGAINST THE BILL AND GIVES ENDLESS SPEECHES ABOUT THE INSANITY OF THIS SYSTEM WHICH HE MUST COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO REPRESENT HIS DISTRICT. HE HAS CHOSEN TO WORK ON THE INSIDE TO EFFECT CHANGE. PLEASE PICK ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO IS MORE DEDICATED TO ENDING CORRUPTION AND BALANCING THE BUDGET THAN RON PAUL.

OUT OF OVER 500 CONGRESSMEN, PLEASE FIND ONE.

JUST ONE.

ONLY ONE.

[Dig]

Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 18, 2007  

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary 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. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

Statement on Earmark Reform
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
April 10, 2008

Madame Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding the constitutional role Congress plays in determining how federal funds are spent.

Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.

Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue-- the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.

Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars.

Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.

Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit.

Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority--restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget.


More: http://ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=earmarks

[citizenx]

Once again, they will just counter this quite rational discourse with more P-R bullshit. "Ron Paul defends Pork-Barrel Spending"

It's so predictable.

[Dig]

Once again, they will just counter this quite rational discourse with more P-R bullshit. "Ron Paul defends Pork-Barrel Spending"

It's so predictable.

These people who continue to fund illegal overseas genocide with forced devaluation of the currency and debt slavery are saying Ron Paul is the reason for the over $75 Trillion deficit and the $1.5 Quadrillion derivatives bubble which Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan continues to expand.

Yup, that makes sense. The CFR/Bilderberg puppets really are going all out on this obvious stupidity. They are sick and morbid comedians as they propagate this disinfo while saber rattling about exterminating 15 million Iranians, like it is no big deal.

TIME FOR THIS COUNTRY TO WAKE UP FROM THIS CFR MIND CONTROL! 

[Freeski]

Educating about liberty would be telling them the system is opporating ina corrupt way and should stop immediately or be subject to recall, and baishment from the House And Senate. THAT'S educating about liberty, the freedom of the people to tell their representatives what to do.

Rendering evil for evil will in the end never work. It is a completely wrong tactic to get money back in that manner. You get it back by mandating Congrees simply gives back what is due a state, period. And if they refuse, you remove them from office. THAT'S educating about liberty.

Washington will NEVER change to the will of the public until the public makes Washington change. Those who run Washington will not change on their own as a group left unchecked. But alas, the public sits in anger, ever voting for change, and yet it remains the same.

You know what they say about the definition of insanity!

"But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house [divided] against a house falleth." Luke 11:17 (KJV)

I hear you and I struggle with it, too, meaning his logic. I would personally take a different approach...

[Kilika]

YOU REALLY THINK THAT RON PAUL IS THE REASON FOR THE OUTRAGEOUS BUDGETS?

HE ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THE BILLS.

WHY ARE YOU SO WILLFULLY IGNORANT ABOUT SUCH A COMMON SENSE ISSUE.

THEY ARE SPENDING THE MONEY...HE REPRESENTS A DISTRICT. HE PUTS IN THE APPROPRIATE EARMARKS FOR THAT DISTRICT ON BEHALF OF HIS CONSTITUENTS.

HE VOTES AGAINST THE BILL AND GIVES ENDLESS SPEECHES ABOUT THE INSANITY OF THIS SYSTEM WHICH HE MUST COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO REPRESENT HIS DISTRICT. HE HAS CHOSEN TO WORK ON THE INSIDE TO EFFECT CHANGE. PLEASE PICK ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO IS MORE DEDICATED TO ENDING CORRUPTION AND BALANCING THE BUDGET THAN RON PAUL.

OUT OF OVER 500 CONGRESSMEN, PLEASE FIND ONE.

JUST ONE.

ONLY ONE.

Oh come now, out of that whole post, you focus on one small sentence, which I must admit should have been worded differently, but I didn't think the point would be lost. Although I did expect Paul supporters to chime in, and alas, here we are!

Ron Paul has my respect in so many ways as far as being a representative, but I don't agree with everything he does or says, and his earmark position I totally disagree with, but that doesn't discount the man as a whole. I don't label myself as a supporter of any specific politician, but Paul is far and away more in tune with how the Republic should be run, even though his hands are tied in many ways if he wants to stay in Washington.

But thanks anyways for your spirited reminder!

[Dig]

This is such a faux issue, but the media is going kookoo with it. There is hardly any other approach to take. As a representative of the house of representatives, that is the way to represent the constituents. Please explain who does not engage in earmark spending. How else is a congressman able to provide money for the district? Maybe I am missing something. Please explain how you would do it. I am quite curious.

You know, with Ron Paul sometimes people have to look deeper than the talking points. I remember when Ron Paul was on Bill Maher and he mentioned that the civil war was total BS and should never have been fought. D. L. Hughley was on the show and almost had a seizure. But the thing about D. L. Hughley is that he does his homework. So he investigated what this crazy old guy was saying and found out that Ron Paul was 100% correct on the civil war issue. He then invited Ron Paul on his show and to this day it is one of the most phenomenal interview ever. They both broke down so many media taboos that night...

Hughley: Ron Paul 'too human' to be Republican
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Hughley_Ron_Paul_too_human_to_0309.html
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday March 9, 2009

Comedian D.L. Hughley is not famous for flattery. Especially when his guests are not Democrats. But one Republican, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, seems to have found another liberal admirer in the CNN variety show host. "Ron, you are too human to be Republican," he jested on a Sunday broadcast of D.L. Hughley Breaks the News. "Ron, you ran for president," began Hughley. "And when you dropped out, you did not back John McCain. You have some issues with some members of your party, right?" "Yeah, when they don't live up to their promises, if they call themselves fiscal conservatives and then they double the size of the budget and the deficit, then I can't with a clear conscience support them," Paul said without hesitation.

Of course, Paul isn't only at odds with his party. He refused to support President Obama's economic stimulus package as well: a point of inquiry for Hughley. "Well, I don't think it's going to do any good," he said. "Most of that money so far hasn't helped the little guy. Going to Wall Street, if they would have taken all of that money and just sent checks out, we would have been better off.  "I would like to get the money into the hands of the people. I don't trust the government and don't trust the politicians and the bureaucrats because they bail out their buddies. What we want is to get more money in the hands of the people. That's why should suspend the income tax and everybody would get a pay raise immediately. There are still a few people employed. So this would be a big boost to the economy. And the people make the decisions rather than bailing out corporate giants and banks, and then they take their money and they get billions of dollars worth of bonuses."

He called the current state of affairs, "absolutely out of control." "The amazing thing is you almost -- you don't seem like a Republican to me that I have ever heard," exclaimed Hughley. "You seem so reasonable. No, honestly, you really do. You seem to make sense, which I don't attribute to very many politicians." "... Ron, you are, you are too human to be Republican," he said. Earlier in the interview, Hughley had joked about RNC Chairman Michael Steele's apology to talk show host Rush Limbaugh after he had made borderline disparaging remarks on Hughley's show.  "I like Michael Steele a lot," he said. "... I don’t think he should resign. This is like, I started all of this. This is like black-on-black crime. That’s what it is. I want him to keep his job. But since then Michael Steele has apologized which, I hate. I think if you say something you mean, you should just stand by it.  "... Why is his name Steele? You should call him aluminum. He folded that fast. I don’t understand. Does Rush Limbaugh run the GOP? It seems like it to me." Asked his opinion on the controversial radio pundit, Congressman Paul stated bluntly: Rush Limbaugh "certainly doesn't represent me."

Download the video: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Hughley_Ron_Paul_too_human_to_0309.html

FULL TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/07/dlh.01.html

HUGHLEY: You know, first off, I did not -- I was having a conversation but I didn't mean for this to happen. And I like Michael Steele a lot. I'm supporting him on my cup. I don't think he should resign. This is like -- I started all of this. This is like black-on-black crime. That's what it is. I want him to keep his job. But since then Michael Steele has apologized which, I hate. I think if you say something you mean, you should just stand by it. He said, "I respect Rush Limbaugh. He's a national conservative leader. And in no way, do I want to diminish his voice."

Why is the name Steele? You should call him aluminum. He folded that fast. I don't understand. Does Rush Limbaugh run the GOP? It seems like it to me. Here now to talk about the Grand Old Party is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. How are you doing, Ron?

You see, it's amazing. You are probably the most -- the favorite Republican of everybody that I know, man. You talk sensibly. You're very reasonable. You're very pragmatic in your approach. Can I ask you an honest question, is Rush Limbaugh the Republican Party leader? REP. RON PAUL, (R) TX: Philosophically, he has a lot to do with it. But technically, no, he's not an elected leader. But philosophically, he's filling a void, I think there is a void in the Republican Party. And in some ways he's filling it. But there are philosophic influences and that's what Rush Limbaugh does.

HUGHLEY: Then let me ask you probably a more direct question. Why do so many people insist on kissing his ass like that? Why is he so -- Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina apologized. Congressman Phil Gingrey apologized. Now you have the chairman of the RNC apologizing to him. I don't think they said anything that was unreasonable. Why would they insist on ...

PAUL: I have no idea. I can't quite figure out all of this excitement about this event.

HUGHLEY: Me neither.

PAUL: Because in a way, I just wonder about the liberals and Democrats wanting to help Rush Limbaugh so much. He's making a lot more money. You know what I suspect that's going on, and this has nothing to do with the conspiracy, but I think what they want to happen is Rush Limbaugh make a whole lot of money and then they're going to tax him and limit his income to about $250,000 a year, and they're going to put a tax on all of the entertainers and we're going to bail out everybody in the country and take care of all of the poor people.

HUGHLEY: Hey, man, the word conspiracy is going to be used, let the black guy do it. I want to do that. But he does represent -- Rush Limbaugh does represent a pretty large segment of the Republican Party.

PAUL: I think -- the poll, nobody knows the exact number. I think I saw a poll that said 11 percent but they are energetic and they know about it. But he doesn't represent a lot of people involved with social values. He certainly doesn't represent me.

HUGHLEY: Now, Rush did say that he wanted President Obama to fail. Do you feel the same way?

PAUL: No, no, not really. And I didn't hear his exact words. But, you know, if a person's goal is to help poor people and take care of and improve the world and bring peace, want them to be successful. But if they want to be -- if they want to socialize the country and -- and nationalize everything, no, you don't want them to be successful there. But you can support their goals, and you hope they do, but I don't want any authoritarian to be successful. I don't want people to be successful in their foreign policy, even if we go off to another war, like Obama's doing right now in Afghanistan. You know, if you say oh, great, let's have great success over there and then he can go on and take on Pakistan.

HUGHLEY: Thank you, Ron. We're going to be right back. Next, we have more with Ron Paul. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUGHLEY: We are back with Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Ron, you ran for president. When you dropped out, you did not back John McCain. Obviously, you have some issues with some members of your party, right?

PAUL: Yeah, when they don't live up to their promises, if they call themselves fiscal conservatives and then they double the size of the budget and the deficit, then I can't with a clear conscience support them.

HUGHLEY: So you were against George Bush's big spending, too?

PAUL: Oh, absolutely. And certainly I was against his foreign policy and his violation of personal civil liberties, the privacy that he was invading and the secrecy of government. I didn't like any of that. I'm sort of an old-fashioned conservative that believes in the Constitution.

HUGHLEY: Now, you voted against -- also voted against President Obama's stimulus package. Obviously, you had reservations about that. Why was that?

PAUL: Well, I don't think it's going to do any good. Most of that money so far hasn't helped the little guy. Going to Wall Street, if they would have taken all of that money and just sent checks out, we would have been better off. I would like to get the money into the hands of the people. I don't trust the government and don't trust the politicians and the bureaucrats because they bail out their buddies. What we want is to get more money in the hands of the people. That's why should suspend the income tax and everybody would get a pay raise immediately. There are still a few people employed. So this would be a big boost to the economy. And the people make the decisions rather than bailing out corporate giants and banks, and then they take their money and they get billions of dollars worth of bonuses. It's absolutely out of control.

HUGHLEY: But, Ron, OK, I, too, was against the bailout. But some aspects of the stimulus package, I see like as far as extending unemployment benefits to people, making those a little longer and things like that, other attributes of the stimulus package. I agree with some of those. But the bailout, I have to say, I was totally against it. I didn't think we should bail out G.M.. I thought some of the banks, I could see how that was necessary. But honestly, what do we do then?

PAUL: Well, you had -- you have to understand how we got into this mess. We got into this mess because ...

HUGHLEY: Because we spent like there was no tomorrow. We all spent like there was no time.

PAUL: Right. We elected the Republicans to back up from big government and they doubled the size of everything and ran up the deficit. So we spent too much, we borrowed too much. And then we started putting pressure on the fed. The fed acts on their own and they started inflating, that is creating credit out of thin air, they're the ones who really caused the boom and really bring about the bust. After the depression ended after World War II, the spending went down two-thirds and taxes went down one-third, and that's when the depression finally ended in the late '40s.

HUGHLEY: Why? The amazing thing is you almost -- you don't seem like a Republican to me that I have ever heard. You seem so reasonable. No, honestly, you really do. You seem to make sense, which I don't attribute to very many politicians.

PAUL: OK. Go ahead.

HUGHLEY: But the government does have to do something. I think we're very panicked. I think the electorate is clearly nervous. The government has to do something to kind of allay their fears or we'll never get on track, right?

PAUL: That is true. And we could if we had some sensible people here. And I, even though I'm a strict constitutionalist, I don't believe in most of these programs, I still have an interim set of priorities. I would cut $400 billion, $500 billion from overseas. I don't think it makes any sense to blow up bridges in Iraq and then pay a no-bid to rebuild them through no-bid contracts where the corporations never rebuild. I would say spend all of that money back here at home. We would save enough money by changing our foreign policy, cutting down on our deficit and still take care of people we have taught to be so dependent. We spent over a trillion dollars a year maintaining an American empire but nobody wants to give up on the empire, not even this new administration.

They're pursuing the Bush policies in the Middle East and are not cutting back. And yesterday a gave a speech on the House floor, and I literally bet the troops will not be out of Iraq in 2011, because the -- we're going to have a big amnesty [NOTE: RP said Embassy, but the CNN transcribers wrote amnesty, what an oversight] and we're going to have 56 military bases. Believe me, that is very offensive to the people of Iraq.

HUGHLEY: Ron, you are -- you are too human to be Republican.

Now, I was on Bill Maher about a year and a half ago or so. And you came on, and you came on by satellite, and you were explaining about the Civil War, how it didn't need to be fought. I was at first, like, is he saying it didn't need to be fought? But when you explained it to me, I thought it was one of the most pragmatic, reasonable things I have ever heard a politician say.

PAUL: You know, the other nations in the west that had slavery all got rid of slavery without a civil war. And the motivation behind the Civil War had more to do than just the slavery issue.

HUGHLEY: Right.

PAUL: So we lost 600,000 Americans and a lot of residual, probably some leftover today. There's still residual. So you could have for a small fraction of the money and no deaths just bought the slaves, you know, and freed the slaves. That's what Britain did and some other nations. And that just makes a lot more sense than fighting a war and killing each other.

HUGHLEY: I tell you what ...

PAUL: I don't like this war as a solution to our problems.

HUGHLEY: I tell you what, you make way too much sense. You can't be Republican. I will say it again. Are you going to run again in 2012?

PAUL: Well, I might be running from somebody or running for Congress. Or who knows what?

HUGHLEY: Thank you, Congressman Ron Paul. It was a pleasure, man. A real pleasure. Wow.

[citizenx]

The Party machine/hacks really don't want to see someone as independent as R.P. run for Pres. under the G.O.P. banner. They prefer pseudo-"Mavericks" like McCain, when they can't get a suitable clone candidate.  The straw poll really sent them scrambling to undermine this man who rally is a shining example of integrity in a great morass we reluctantly call our U.S. Congress.

[Kilika]

[Please explain who does not engage in earmark spending. How else is a congressman able to provide money for the district? Maybe I am missing something. Please explain how you would do it. I am quite curious.

The status quo is as you know, to use earmarks. Yes, they all do it. I guess my position is that there should be no earmarks, but rather things are budgeted specifically, rather than having a slush fund to draw from. The same reason for not tacking on bills to other bills. Both should have to stand and be counted on their own as independent proposals. Each expendature should be a request, so there is oversight on just what the money is being consider for. If a state needs money, they are free to come with income projects, etc. They don't need the Feds for that.

Some will say that if you review each and every project request and every bill as a stand-alone bill, the system would get bogged down. GREAT! That's the idea. Slow down all this bill-passing, cash-spending frenzy. Bills are introduced so fast, and there are so many as it is, nothing is being fully considered. Why is that? Where are all these bills coming from? Many are spending bills of some sort or another. And many times what is proposed is stuffed into another bill because it won't stand on it's own merit.

The idea is to make politicians take more time to explain to the public what it is they are proposing. Unrealistic as it is I know, but there you have it.

[Dig]

The status quo is as you know, to use earmarks. Yes, they all do it. I guess my position is that there should be no earmarks, but rather things are budgeted specifically, rather than having a slush fund to draw from. The same reason for not tacking on bills to other bills. Both should have to stand and be counted on their own as independent proposals. Each expendature should be a request, so there is oversight on just what the money is being consider for. If a state needs money, they are free to come with income projects, etc. They don't need the Feds for that.

Some will say that if you review each and every project request and every bill as a stand-alone bill, the system would get bogged down. GREAT! That's the idea. Slow down all this bill-passing, cash-spending frenzy. Bills are introduced so fast, and there are so many as it is, nothing is being fully considered. Why is that? Where are all these bills coming from? Many are spending bills of some sort or another. And many times what is proposed is stuffed into another bill because it won't stand on it's own merit.

The idea is to make politicians take more time to explain to the public what it is they are proposing. Unrealistic as it is I know, but there you have it.

I do not see anything that you are posting which contradicts anything that Ron Paul proposes. I invite you to look deeper. Examine his speeches on earmarks and his interviews for over 30 years which has been completely consistent, specifically in relation to monetary policy. This is a faux controversy and is meant to alientate Dr. Paul with his constituents. It serves an elite agenda and has nothing to do with budget issues.

Dr. Paul has never hidden an earmark, has never created an earmark for a bridge to nowhere, and has never been in favor of slush funds. All the others have and then when the negative stigma comes in with earmarks they use that nevative energy to attack Ron Paul in hopes that he will cower and distance himself with his constituents. It is a shake down which will lead to more power to the elites. Plain and simple.

[Kilika]

Ron is solid enough that I don't see the elites doing much damage between he and his constituents. I don't see him having too many fair weather supporters. He appears to be one that is willing to discuss the situation, whereas all the others want to do is argue or ignore and point fingers at those that are calling for accountability.

I just don't think continuing earmarks is a positive move in countering the Fed's theft of state funds. Instead, the states should force the Feds to play nice.

[Dig]

Ron is solid enough that I don't see the elites doing much damage between he and his constituents. I don't see him having too many fair weather supporters. He appears to be one that is willing to discuss the situation, whereas all the others want to do is argue or ignore and point fingers at those that are calling for accountability.

I just don't think continuing earmarks is a positive move in countering the Fed's theft of state funds. Instead, the states should force the Feds to play nice.

Well there is also where you and RP agree. Ron Paul wants the entire system changed including true earmark reform which incorporates all of your ideals. But as long as this is the method used and as long as he is a representative of his constituents, he has a duty to represent them.

I mean just look at it from 2 steps back...

Illuminati get caught abusing earmark system with bridges to nowhere and hidden ways to bribe congressmen.

Illuminati also get caught stealing trillions via the bailouts.

Illuminati attacks their own abusive earmarks (to divert the more confrontational issue of the trillions in bailouts), blaming the earmarking itself rather than the people committing fraud/treason/whatever.

Now that the stigma is sufficient and the criminals are still held harmless, they use the negative stigma to attack the most honest and trustworthy politician in the congress.

This is the same as the franklin cover up and then arresting a guy for taking a picture of his kid on a motorized animal in front of a Wal Mart.

It is classic illuminati insanity.