I have pointed out before that Ron Paul is not what he claims to be. He wraps himself, for example, in the mantle of Libertarianism while voting for government price fixing. He also calls for a free market in health care while supporting a federal mandate requiring ERs to treat patients with no emergency condition.
It has now come to light that, while representing himself as an enemy of overspending, the good doctor has had his snout deep in the earmark trough. The WSJ reports the following:
The Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
When I first started reading about Ron Paul, I looked up his positions on health care and I liked what I saw. I later discovered, to my disappointment, that his actions do not come close to matching his rhetoric. This earmark revelation is yet another example of his hypocrisy.
The dude’s a fraud.
Comments 21
He is doing what any good rep is supposed to do, he is getting federal money to go to his district instead of going somewhere else. The money is already in the budget, it will be spent somewhere, why shouldn’t he try to get some of it to his district. You have a lot to learn about politics. Instead of focusing on what you don’t understand, try focusing on what you can understand. End the Federal reserve, end the IRS, end the wars, all of them. Restore the first, fourth, and fifth amedment. Restore liberty. That is what Ron Paul will do as presedent.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 9:51 am ¶Uh-huh … right.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 9:53 am ¶That’s why I’m voting for McCain. He’s the poster child for Constitutional, limited government.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:05 am ¶if you had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government and had a chance to get some of it back, would you not ask your congressman to “earmark” it for you, get serious guys.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:20 am ¶It’s not so much the earmarks themselves. It’s the hypocrisy.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:36 am ¶There’s no hypocrisy, Catron. Paul has an obligation to pass earmark requests along from his district, which he then votes against.
You don’t get it because you don’t want to get it.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:41 am ¶The guy’s a phony — face it.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 10:42 am ¶i’m afraid that if you are looking for a candidate in this race that isn’t a hypocrit than you aren’t going to vote. mr. paul is doing what his bosses are asking him to, is that being hypocritical? are you saying that any of the other candidates aren’t doing the same?
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 11:26 am ¶Most of them are indeed a little slippery. But Dr. Faux has made such a big deal of being a “man of principle,” that his hypocrisy is particularly egregious.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 12:32 pm ¶Do you file a 1040 (or 1040A, EZ)? If so, do you use any of the deductions they allow you, or do you say to yourself “Aw, let them keep it - they could use a little extra to help our societal goals.”? This is similar on a larger scale. If you try to receive back from the IRS a portion of what you put in, would you call yourself a hypocrite if you also stated you cared about the poor? I wouldn’t.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 1:49 pm ¶The “government price fixing” thing is not as clear as you make it appear. This is negotiation of prices between the govt and drug providers. Have you ever worked in or for the federal govt? The highest prices are charged to the govt. This legislation removes some of the pharmaceutical subsidy incentives for the drug companies to rip off the citizens’ taxes. The government is not imposing a fixed price in the market, just using at least some free market principles to get a good deal, thereby spending the citizens’ taxes a little better.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 2:01 pm ¶The second thing about forcing ERs to take care of non-emergency patients I just don’t see. Here’s the quote:
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 2:09 pm ¶“Vote to pass a resolution, agreeing to S. AMDT. 2691 that removes the following provisions from S 1932:
Allows hospitals to refuse treatment to Medicaid patients when they are unable to pay their co-pay if the hospital deems the situation to be a non-emergency
Excludes payment to grandparents for foster care.”
It says “hospitals”, not emergency rooms.
The second thing about forcing ERs to take care of non-emergency patients I just don’t see.
He voted to remove a provision that would have allowed hospitals to refer non-emergent Medicaid patients to their primary care physicians. The ER is where this situation arises.
Here’s the story: a Medicaid patient appears in the ER with a runny nose. He has no emergency and no money for his co-pay. Dr. Paul’s vote makes illegal for the ER doctor to say “go to your regular doctor for this problem.”
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 2:24 pm ¶This is negotiation of prices between the govt and drug providers.
CMS won’t “negotiate” with the drug companies any more than it “negotiates” with hospitals. It will simply set a price and exclude from the program any company that refuses to sell at that price.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 2:48 pm ¶He puts in the earmarks like a good congressman and then votes down the bill.
Posted 07 Aug 2007 at 3:11 pm ¶You can’t name a single candidate who is responsible for less pork than Paul — at least no one who held power of the purse.
If this is the best you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 12:34 am ¶Nate, the point is that he has made so much noise about out-of-control government spending. It’s not unlike a President who promises the “most ethical administration in history” while presiding over an unprecedented wave of executive corruption. Ring a bell?
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 3:50 pm ¶Catron it must get hot sitting in the hip pocket of corporate medicine all day long.
Paul’s earmarks and subsequent vote against spending bills are not hypocritical in the least. They are in fact quite rational and appropriate.
See, I can post a conclusion with no basis too! The difference between you and I is that I’m right and I’m not bought and paid for by a special interest.
Posted 10 Aug 2007 at 5:18 pm ¶As they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
The “perfect” candidate would never support an earmark, would never change his mind, and would agree with you on every single position. Unfortunately, that “perfect” candidate would never get elected, let along get re-elected 9 times.
I don’t mean to use the “I need to do this to stay in office so I can ‘do the right thing’” self-rationalization logic that almost every elected official uses to justify just about any nasty thing that they do, but if you can find a more honest and less hypocritical representative who favors limited, constitutional government and a restoration of the rights that we’ve had eroded over the years, please let me know and I’ll gladly vote for him. In the mean time, I’m voting for Ron Paul.
Posted 12 Aug 2007 at 7:45 pm ¶In the mean time, I’m voting for Ron Paul.
Just remember, when Hillary becomes President, that you contributed to her victory.
Posted 13 Aug 2007 at 8:51 am ¶If our election system requires you ignore your principles when you vote (game the system) then there is something wrong with the system. We need a system where a vote for one candidate cannot be construed as a vote for a differnt one.
I would agree a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary if Ron Paul were a 3rd party candidate. However if Dr. Paul becomes the Republican candidate the spoiler effect goes away.
One fix for this systemic problem is Instant Runoff Voting. We spend all of this money running these grand polls and we never find out who your 2nd or third choices are. This is throwing away a lot of data and sometimes results in a minority winner.
Posted 17 Aug 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶Post a Comment