The Dallas Morning News, Austin American-Statesman, and Victoria Advocate have all picked up a story about Ron Paul's hypocrisy in fighting for earmarks in approproations bills, then voting against the bills on final passage.
The article, by Suzanne Gamboa of the Associated Press, notes that Paul has requested over 50 earmarks for his district, including "$8.6 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel and $10 million for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge. He also asked for money for a nursing program, expansion of a cancer center at Brazosport Hospital, a seafood testing program, a Children's Identification and Location Database and $8 million for Wild American Shrimp Marketing requested by the Texas Shrimp Association."
If past performance indicates future actions, Paul will fight to get those earmarks into the budget, then vote against the total document. Knowing that the vote to pass the budget will be overwhelming, he's in the best of both worlds: he can fight for all the pork he wants, sanctimoniously vote against the budget, then tell his colleagues, constituents, and citizens how he's voted against Bog Government Spending.
Paul's aide Tom Lizardo (I am not making that name up) defends Paul's speaking with forked tongue, saying "he feels the IRS takes the money and so it's (his) job to make sure money comes back in the district." Riiiiiiiight.
Political posturing and hypocrisy are nothing new, but Paul's hypocrisy points up the deeper problem with Libertarianism: it just doesn't work. You cannot live in the United States of America without paying the piper. We live in a complex, integrated, globalized society. In that environment, government plays a critical role -- not just in the "soft" health and human services issues, but in the coordination of basic institutions like transportation, public safety, finance, commerce, and education.
Libertarians are, I think, right about some things. I believe government should stay out of people's personal lives, for instance. Also, having watched George Bush and Rick Perry in action the last few years, I tend to agree with Thomas Paine that "that government is best that governs least." But Paul's knee-jerk libertarianism is, at its core, irresponsible.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it's great that he can get pork to his district. Democrats get to vote for these pork bills knowing that they're getting money to Ron Paul's district.
That's why I work for the government and still give money and my time and effort to electing libertarians. I love the irony that the people who are paying me are giving to someone who wants them out. Any candidate but Ron Paul will end in me getting a raise. If Ron Paul is elected, I'm gladly out of work (briefly).
Hypocritical? Perhaps. But perhaps as hypocritical as someone who thinks the force of the government gun shouldn't be used in our personal lives unless the personal part involves a voluntary transaction between individuals.
so, when the congress introduces a bill to tax the hell out of the nation, and every congressman tries to bring some of the tax money back to his district, and when ron paul attempts to give back his district it's tax dollars, and votes against the whole bill, he is a hypocrite? Right. He has said himself on television that he opposes federal funding consistently, but makes sure his tax payers get their money back if it happens. This is exactly what i would do in his position, regardless of the impact on my popularity! For god's sake, to not give the money back to my district would be to allow the rest of the nation to steal it from my district!
Post a Comment