Ron Pauls Earmark Request for 2009

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't care that Paul is trying to get as much back for his district from the thieving federal government as possible.

 

[A. Havnes]

I don't care that Paul is trying to get as much back for his district from the thieving federal government as possible.

I think it's a good thing, but there are morons everywhere who don't know what an earmark does.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It gives his detractors, most neoconservatives now-a-days, ammo to grandstand against him. But if Paul quit completely, they'd just move on to those old stale newsletters again or something. Don't kid yourselves into thinking they'll ever leave Paul alone; not as long as he is against their favorite war in Iraq (which is really what it is all about from them; they could care less about newsletters or earmarks or whatever other lame things they go on against Paul about.)

 

[joshdvm]

Rachel,
Tell Ron that when he is talking to the media about this issue to use the analogy that Max used on these boards back during the campaign when this issue came up:

"Here's how earmarks work:

Supoose you and 2 co-workers have a common lunch fund. You are debating over what to order for lunch. You prefer Chineses food which costs less, but your two buddies want a fancy pizza with all the toppings.

Before you actually vote on where to order lunch from, you make it clear to them that if pizza wins, you are "earmarking" two slices for yourself. What the heck...it's YOUR money.

When the vote is cast, you vote AGAINST the fancy pizza expenditure in favor of the more economical Chinese food.

When you lose the vote, aren't you still entitled to the slices that you "earmarked" and paid for?

Ron Paul puts his earmarks in, but ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THE FINAL BILL. When he loses the vote (which he always does because he is the most fiscally responsible man in Congress), he gets money earmarked for his district. If he doesn't earmark...that money will be spent elsewhere!...So if you don't eat your slices.....your buddies get to screw you out of lunch..."


I've found that when I use that analogy to explain it to people they immediately understand this issue and Ron's position.

"When you lose the vote, aren't you still entitled to the slices that you "earmarked" and paid for?"




I don't think that's what's happening, though, so the analogy is NOT valid.

It is the INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER who is entitled to those "slices," NOT FEMA, The Army Corps of Engineers, of City GOVERNMENTS.

By what logical argument are those GOVERNMENT AGENCIES any more entitled to money stolen from TAXPAYERS than are Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, et al ?????

There's no logical argument and the whole thing stinks to high heaven.