Re: Et Tu Ron?

William Lawson — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:15:03 -0000

Here is a letter to the editor I submitted Monday evening after reading the WSJ article. Surprisingly, they've not published it, so I might as well share it here:

Editors:

One would expect the first Wall Street Journal article featuring presidential candidate Ron Paul's name in the title to comment intelligently on the healthy debate that has ensued as a result of his candidacy. You could have chosen his consistent support for Constitutional limits on the size and scope of federal government, the contrast between those limits and our current economic and foreign policies, or perhaps even his support for personal liberty and free markets that places him beyond the mainstream of current Republican politics.

Instead, we were given an outdated and dismissive article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288...) commenting on earmarks requested for Rep. Paul's Texas district. First, you prejudice your perspective by labeling Rep. Paul a "libertarian gadfly". Next, this information is by no means recent. You are rehashing information first released by Rep. Paul in June, and that has been widely dissected in online media since then (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/06/29/r...). Finally, your attempt to seek clarification from Rep. Paul's office ignored the most obvious source: the congressman himself. Should you avail yourself to this modern wonder known as the Internet (or "Internets", as it is occasionally referenced by politicians), you would discover that Ron Paul specifically addressed the hypocrisy of the current system in his Texas Straight Talk constituent bulletin of June 18:

"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 necessarily 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."

(Courtesy of http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836)

Rep. Paul's assertion that "eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats" is an indictment of the current process, not the Congressman. It is unfortunate that your article was not able to identify the systemic issue, and instead was only able to characterize a truncated response from his office as "worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd". It appears that enquiring readers would be better off consulting Rep. Paul's extensive record of published letters and speeches (indexed at www.ronpaullibrary.org), than relying on your characterization of his actions.

Re: Et Tu Ron?

sadcox — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:16:02 -0000

BTW, this may be indicative of the "fair and balanced" reporting we can expect from the WSJ going forward.

Hmmm....

Re: Et Tu Ron?

sadcox — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:14:18 -0000

I was a little worried when I read this post--did some reading up...

This post at The Liberty Papers explains it pretty well.

Basically, it is his job to represent his district, so he forwards requests to committees, then votes against the bills these committees recommend if they include wasteful spending. That way, if the bill passes his district has a chance to get their share of tax money (that they paid) back.

I don't have a problem with this. I think what was written in the WSJ doesn't really tell the whole story. I don't care if he submits idiotic earmarks to committees on behalf of his constituents as long as he argues and votes against them in the subsequent bills.

Until the earmark system is changed, it really isn't possible for him to do his job any other way.

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Rogel — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:44:04 -0000

IÂ honestlyÂ did not understand your explanation Jeffrey. I would reallyÂ appreciateÂ if you will provide more in-depth explanation, because on its face it look pretty bad.

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Jeffrey Bubb — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:32:38 -0000

Don't fear: Paul only earmarks such items to reimberse his district after their taxes has been taken. Once the vote for said earmarks hits the floor, he vetos it.

It looks Obvious - Latest Comments in Et Tu Ron?

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Re: Et Tu Ron?

Re: Et Tu Ron?