Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Ron Paul Dr. No or Dr. Maybe?
The Houston Chronicle reports on Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and earmarks in last week's omnibus spending bill:
Rep. Ron Paul vehemently denounced the $410 billion catch-all spending bill approved last week by the House of Representatives.
But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its cost.
Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
More here. More on Paul and earmarks here. And how Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) cuts a different path.
Reason.com's Ron Paul coverage here.
Reason.tv took a look at earmarks and talked to the Senate's Dr. No, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who called earmarks the gateway drug to big government:
adrian|3.2.09 @ 11:36AM|#
And he had his name on newsletters with racist comments 20 years ago (although he didn't write them)! Keep fighting the good fight REASON! You may lead libertarians to 3% of the vote one day!
|3.2.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Okay so the Dr. is not perfect. He's more consistant than all those fucking lunatics in the congress.
adrian|3.2.09 @ 11:42AM|#
He has acknowledged why he does this about 1,000 times. He votes against it because it is unconstitutional but adds the stuff in because it is his job. Just like how he says he takes all his tax breaks and would take social security.
|3.2.09 @ 11:44AM|#
I thought it was understood that earmarks don't add a single dime to the cost of an appropriations bill, but just direct where some of the money is going to be spent. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about earmarks.
Old Bull Lee|3.2.09 @ 11:44AM|#
I wouldn't equate hurricane damage repair with arts centers and farm subsidies.
|3.2.09 @ 11:45AM|#
Still not sure why earmarks are the devil. I understand that the spending itself is problematic. But why all the fuss about the specificity?
|3.2.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I would do the same if I were him, but directed somewhat differently. I oppose most federal spending, but if it's gonna happen, I would calculate how much the total federal income tax is paid by the residents of my district. Then, I'd include that in the spending bill and give it a truth-hiding name, like The Northeastern New York Economic Recovery Amendment. Then my office in the district would cut a check to the taxpayers. I should have no trouble getting reelected.
|3.2.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about earmarks.
Earmarks *do* matter.
Just look at what happened to TARP; a few judicious
bribes earmarks got the fucking thing over the hump.
Tyler|3.2.09 @ 12:29PM|#
He's just getting back what the government has leeched from his
district and constituents.
Try as you might you still can't fault him because he voted against
the bill, even in bills he opposes he has a duty to represent his
constituents. Secondly, the money had already been appropriated, so
not submitting spending requests would be deferring these spending
decisions to another government entity, which is even less
responsible.
I love Reason magazine but I can't stand its coverage of Paul...
every post is filled doubt, oozing unwarranted skepticism, and
derides him at every turn.
Colonel_Angus|3.2.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Why should his constituents miss out on all the goodies? Plenty of libertarians will accept any entitlements they can take advantage of, because you're not going to stop them by boycotting them. This shit can only be killed at its source.
Orange Line Special|3.2.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Was Dave
Weigel a Soros/Rockefeller plant from the get-go? (Those two
are contributors to washingtonindependent.com or their parent
company).
Or, is Weigel a plant over there? Is Weigel's new
task from his shadowy masters to help bring down BHO? Did BHO write
- or have written - some newsletters a couple decades ago?
Or, is Weigel a triple agent, pretending to work
for Soros while working for the Cosmos while working... for
Soros?
|3.2.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Continuing my rant about politicians lack oof veracity from a
different thread -
03/06/08
Apparently we'll have them. Forever.
Still not sure why earmarks are the devil. I understand that the spending itself is problematic. But why all the fuss about the specificity?
They are used to reward campaign contributions and steer money to
projects that are not the business of the federal government.
EJM|3.2.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Or, is Weigel a triple agent, pretending to work for Soros
while working for the Cosmos while working... for Soros?
Does Pele still play for them?
(reference
explained here)
|3.2.09 @ 12:50PM|#
This is Ron Paul's usual M.O. Rail against legislation and load it with ear-marks. "If you're going to pass this abomination, the good people of Lake Jackson are going to get theirs". Some have a problem with this position. I don't. He delivers on rhetoric and the up/down vote. The Bill may be a wee bit worse for Texas pork, but pork isn't half the problem as what their doing to begin with.
|3.2.09 @ 12:56PM|#
EJM-
Off topic:
Tho other day I went to the links you had posted regarding Dick
Enberg's non-sports game show hosting. Good stuff. My memory was
refreshed. I do recall the promos for the showws bur do not
actually remeber watching them.
Tom|3.2.09 @ 12:56PM|#
Is Reason upset that Paul allowed money that was already in the system whether he liked it or not to be appropriated to hurricane relief? That seems... unreasonable. Or maybe just inexplicably vengeful.
dhex|3.2.09 @ 1:02PM|#
alternately, you guys really love paul and have no other lens by which to understand criticism?
creech|3.2.09 @ 1:19PM|#
"And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my
constitutents' 'interests, ' I shall reply that I was informed
their main interest is liberty, and that in that cause I am doing
the very best I can." Sen. Barry Goldwter.
I wonder if Dr. Paul would put in his earmarks if the had any
reasonable expectation the spending bill would fail?
Adam|3.2.09 @ 1:26PM|#
To whomever came up with the title of this article-
Idiot. The vote was "no", not maybe.
Not libertarian enough|3.2.09 @ 1:35PM|#
This is just another example of the poor quality arguments and
information Reason has put out over the last few months. I read
that thread the other day, and Joe was right, this site is just
repeating the same whiny garbage every day.
Dr. Paul puts forward better arguments and knowledge on the topics
of Liberty than Reason can ever hope to manage.
It's obvious that Reason is perfectly satisfied with what passes
for crony capitalism than being trully passionate about
liberty.
In conclusion,
EAT A BOWL OF FUCK.....I'AM HERE TO PARTYYYYYYY
douchebags
fyodor|3.2.09 @ 1:41PM|#
But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake
Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his
fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its
cost.
Whether the explanations of Paul's actions given in this thread are
valid or not would seem to boil down to whether his earmarking
fingerprints actually did "inflate" the cost of the spending
measure, or whether they merely directed funds already bound to be
spent to his constituents. (One may also argue that even if it
didn't inflate the current one,
This depends on many varied factors, both empirical and
philosophical (for instance, one may argue that even if the
earmarking didn't overtly affect the measure in question, by
denying pork to others and by furthering the pork process, he's
only built up demand for more gratuitous earmarking for the next
bill, although maybe the demand for that earmarking would exist
regardless, etc., etc.), and I don't know all the relevant facts or
where I would fall on the philosophy, so I'll leave it there except
to say that that's what it would seem to boil down to.
fyodor|3.2.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Oh fuck, forgot to wipe out that paranthetical after I moved it. Where's my damn editor????
The Angry Optimist|3.2.09 @ 1:55PM|#
This is just another example of the poor quality arguments
and information
What argument is this post presenting?
I am seeing a lot of "reason says X, Y and Z about
Ron Paul"...this post is strictly informational, so I can only
assume Paultard rage on this issue is anger at the duplicitous
nature of Paul in this limited circumstance.
reason is just holding a mirror up to the rabid
Paultard dogs.
Superfluous|3.2.09 @ 2:05PM|#
I don't mind criticism of Paul.
But I hate how Reason are always boosting pseudo-libertarian
statist warmongers like Flake and others in the Republican
party.
Superfluous|3.2.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Also, how many billions are we wasting in Flake-supported criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
|3.2.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Oh fuck, forgot to wipe out that paranthetical after I moved
it. Where's my damn editor????
I got the point anyway. Of course, I used to work in government and
so know a tiny bit about how budgets grow and are protected.
|3.2.09 @ 2:12PM|#
RE: 1:35 post
How many drinks was that?
None. Lameness disqualification rule applies.
Vermont Gun Owner|3.2.09 @ 2:15PM|#
The way I look at this is to envision what would result if all (or heck, even 51%) of Congress acted the same way as Paul. The bill would fail, and we'd all be happy, right? In that case, I wish we had more people like Paul in Congress.
|3.2.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Meh. As Warren points out, Ron Paul makes the right vote on the bill. He also looks out for his constituents, if the bill passes over his objection. What more is he supposed to do, here?
Lucas|3.2.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Paul has said repeatedly that he has an elected duty to provide
promised goverment services to his constituents. For example, the
government promised hurricane safety and in many cases, made it
illegal to compete with it in the provision of hurricane
safety.
What's Paul to do? He is his constituents only source of hurricane
safety.
Also, earmarks are something like 1.8% of all spending and they
direct spending away from the President's office, which is
nice.
I would understand this kind of article, if, out of hundreds of
articles with a distinct "moral-libertarian" viewpoint, this was
one which disagreed with Paul. I disagree with Paul sometimes
too.
But it isn't. Generally, Reason is very "pragmatic-libertarian" or
"utilitarian-libertarian", so you'd think they'd be all for a
situational ethic. Specifically, virtually every article written
about Dr. Paul in Reason brings up doubt and shines light on the
miniscule statist things he does. The 30 years of dedicated,
anti-statist work the Doctor has done is just ignored.
Also, it wouldn't have been hard to just put Paul's own stated
opinion on earmarks in the article. But I think Reason truly
disagrees (or is paid to disagree) with Rothbard and the Misesians,
which is sad and counter-productive.
Fred|3.2.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Oh no! You dared to insult The Great Man!
To all of you Paul kiss asses, I submit the following:
1) The fact that you worship Paul rather than Flake or Coburn
proves you belong to a cult rather than care about principle
2) Let me spell this out for you: VOTING NO IS AN EASY CALL FOR
PAUL ON THIS BILL BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT IS GOING TO PASS
3) It is irrelevant whether or not he "inflated" the cost of the
bill. First of all, EARMARKS DO NOT JUST DIRECT SPENDING -- THEY
ADD SPENDING. Second, regardless of whether or not it inflates it,
it is nearly $100 million in FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS THAT HE IS LAYING
CLAIM TO. HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A MAN OF PRINCIPLE?
I saw someone above say "oh well. he's better than the others." At
least I'm glad we're now calling Paul what he is: the least
worst.
Oh well...no point reasoning with cult members.
fyodor|3.2.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Of course, I used to work in government and so know a tiny
bit about how budgets grow and are protected.
So, J sub D, can you say, based on that tiny (dangerous?) bit of
knowledge, whether Paul's earmarking likely fattened the bill or
merely re-shaped a piggy of already determined size?
Spoonman|3.2.09 @ 2:54PM|#
This is Ron Paul's usual M.O. Rail against legislation and load it with ear-marks. "If you're going to pass this abomination, the good people of Lake Jackson are going to get theirs". Some have a problem with this position. I don't. He delivers on rhetoric and the up/down vote. The Bill may be a wee bit worse for Texas pork, but pork isn't half the problem as what their doing to begin with.
This. The man is no angel, but nobody else is pushing libertarian thought on national TV several times a week.
|3.2.09 @ 2:57PM|#
2) Let me spell this out for you: VOTING NO IS AN EASY CALL
FOR PAUL ON THIS BILL BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT IS GOING TO
PASS
But... he always votes no, whether the bills are going to pass or
not.
What's up with the title of this article? He voted NO.
I'll never understand Reason's war on Paul.
bubba|3.2.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Isn't the intracoastal waterway an important part of our
interstate commerce and also national defense?
Unless he's benefitting a particular contractor, this kind of stuff
doesn't smell like the pork that pisses people off.
fyodor|3.2.09 @ 3:00PM|#
regardless of whether or not it inflates it, it is nearly
$100 million in FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS THAT HE IS LAYING CLAIM TO. HOW
CAN YOU CALL HIM A MAN OF PRINCIPLE?
One may very well answer that the way you think it's obvious to,
but I don't know that it's so obvious.
Is a laid off libertarian hypocritical to accept unemployment
benefits? How about any libertarian driving on state funded
roads?
I see your point, but like I say, I don't know if strict adherence
to the libertarian principle that treats state funds as stolen
property is all that realistic, for anyone.
That said, if Paul's earmarks clearly do ADD to spending, that's a
clear knock against them. What's not clear, to me at the moment, is
how you support that assertion. Though if you'd care to tell me how
you support it, I'd be all ears, or eyes, as it were!
|3.2.09 @ 3:15PM|#
fyodor: "Is a laid off libertarian hypocritical to accept
unemployment benefits? How about any libertarian driving on state
funded roads?"
Yes. I was laid off a few months ago and did not apply for
unemployment (or any other) benefits because I felt that would be
hypocritical of me.
No, that is different because it is within the government's
explicitly stated Constitutional rights to build roads. It would be
hypocritical for anarcho-capitalists to drive on state funded roads
though I guess.
Reformed Republican|3.2.09 @ 3:29PM|#
I disagree that it is hypocritical to accept unemployment
benefits. Part of my compensation is used to pay into the
unemployment insurance pool, so I ought to be able to benefit from
it if I need it.
Would I opt for unemployment insurance if it was purely optional? I
do not know.
Jonas|3.2.09 @ 3:33PM|#
I have to confess that I often wonder, had Ron Paul by some
miracle managed to get the Republican nomination, if Reason would
have been more supportive of him than they were of Obama. I can
understand going easy on Obama and being harsh on McCain, but I
kind of suspect that the "libertarian" Reason would have done the
same sort of thing in a Paul v. Obama contest.
Not that I think Reason is "unlibertarian" or that they have an
obligation to support a certain candidate, but it seems like they
have a vendetta against Paul for some reason and I just think that
they would rather have the statist Obama than the pretty innocuous
Paul.
Hmm...
|3.2.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I'm with Robbie on this one. The act of earmarking when you are a libertarian can be analogized to a situation where you walk by a broken storefront during a riot, and you decide to take a TV set because "someone else is going to get it if I don't". Libertarians are trapped by their own rhetoric here. Yes, Paul's position is hypocritical, which makes him no worse than any other politician.
Tyler|3.2.09 @ 3:57PM|#
That is a terrible analogy. If anything, there is that broken
window of a store front and Paul happens to come upon it and sees
his very own TV in the store front... and reclaims it.
The fact is Paul's district is robbed of wealth and forced to
contribute to the pool of funds, funds that would be sent to much
less deserving projects than reconstructing hurricane walls. It is
not hypocritical to recapture the lost capital.
♪|3.2.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Ron,
Seeing how he voted "no," it is more like he didn't take a TV set.
Someone else did, dude.
Colonel_Angus|3.2.09 @ 4:24PM|#
I would gladly accept unemployment if I was laid off, since it is my money. I would also gladly vote for someone who wanted to get rid of unemployment, in order to keep my money. The two are not contradictory.
Nash|3.2.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Has anyone already mentioned that Earmarks are essentially the
legislative branch telling the executive branch how to spend money?
Without them the executive is gonna spend it however it
pleases.
This is completely consistent with what Paul says. We already went
over this last year and came to these conclusions. Why are we doing
it again?
|3.2.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Nash: "Has anyone already mentioned that Earmarks are
essentially the legislative branch telling the executive branch how
to spend money? Without them the executive is gonna spend it
however it pleases."
I thought earmarks were added after debate is closed and such.
Snuck in, as it were, right before signing.
|3.2.09 @ 5:18PM|#
His earmarks included repair projects to the
Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf
Intra-coastal Waterway.
Oh, yeah, this is infinitely worse than the Save the
Harvest Mouse earmark or the Tattoo Removal earmark. The man should
be pistol whipped!!!!
Oh, thanks a lot for pointing this out to us, REASON! I am
so relieved.
For a magazine called Reason|3.2.09 @ 5:21PM|#
This is completely consistent with what Paul says. We
already went over this last year and came to these conclusions. Why
are we doing it again?
Because Ron Paul is the most visible face of libertarianism in
government, and thus some people feel he must be endlessly
scrutinized on the same points over and over and over again.
Mad Max|3.2.09 @ 5:24PM|#
'At least I'm glad we're now calling Paul what he is: the least
worst.'
That's all he is - the least worst? That's *so* disillusioning! I
thought he was like Sir Galahad, a knight 'sans peur and sans
rapproche,' but with a more normal accent. Now it turns out that
he's just a . . . a . . . I can hardly bear to say it . . . a
*politician!*
I don't think I can believe in anything anymore. I have no choice
but to dress all in black and write bad poetry about how much the
world sucks.
|3.2.09 @ 5:24PM|#
Has anyone already mentioned that Earmarks are essentially
the legislative branch telling the executive branch how to spend
money? Without them the executive is gonna spend it however it
pleases.
Exactly. The issue is not the earmarks, it's the Pork Barrel
projects. Paul at least tries to place the money on more useful
things for his constituency than others. I mean, did Pelosi's
constituency really asked for money to save the California
Harvest Mouse?
fyodor|3.2.09 @ 5:33PM|#
The taxes used to fund umemployment benefits AND hurricane walls
are BOTH your money AND other people's.
You can't get around the argument that it's illicit spending just
because you are ONE of the MANY who have been forced to contribute
to it.
No, that is different because it is within the government's
explicitly stated Constitutional rights to build roads.
Really? That's the first I've heard that. Got a citation? Or should
I google "constitution + roads"? I'm a little skeptical.
Even if it's so, the Constitution does not equal libertarianism.
Close, but not quite.
Anyway, that's one opinion on the unemployment benefits, and a
valid one. But it's not the only one, even if the other answers
weren't perfectly airtight. I just don't think there's a perfect
answer available.
Colonel_Angus|3.2.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"Really? That's the first I've heard that. Got a citation? Or
should I google "constitution + roads"? I'm a little
skeptical."
Article I Section 8:
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
Colonel_Angus|3.2.09 @ 5:50PM|#
"This is completely consistent with what Paul says. We already
went over this last year and came to these conclusions. Why are we
doing it again?"
Reason has a short memory. For example, the newsletter issue was
well known before it became the big criticism against Ron Paul. A
few reason writers wrote it off as not a big deal. A few months
later, they proved they have no balls when they "forgot" their
previous stance and changed their minds about it.
Duracomm|3.2.09 @ 6:15PM|#
Interesting watching a personality cult cause lots of
"libertarians" to throw away their libertarian philosophy.
Reminds of the republicans supporting bush's big government
adventure.
JL|3.2.09 @ 6:16PM|#
if a neighborhood had been pillaged by thieves, would it not be right for residents to attempt to reclaim their stolen goods if given the opportunity?
|3.2.09 @ 6:24PM|#
The whole earmark issue was a convenient ploy for John McCain to
have something to attack (e.g. the Bridge to Nowhere) which cost
millions so that he could pretend that he was a fiscal
conservative, in spite of supporting the Iraq War, which cost
hundreds of billions.
Why Reason or any sane publisher would hop on this bandwagon is
beyond me.
Nash|3.2.09 @ 6:28PM|#
"Interesting watching a personality cult cause lots of
"libertarians" to throw away their libertarian philosophy."
Please explain to the rest of us how letting the Executive branch
spend money however it pleases with no input from the legislative
is somehow libertarian.
Loop_Fiasco|3.2.09 @ 8:47PM|#
The argument that the ethical equation is somehow different
because Paul knew this bill would pass works only if he only
inserted earmarks and voted against the bill when the bill was
certain to pass and he refrained from doing the same when the bill
was less certain to pass or would not pass (i.e, president
threatens veto or something.)
So, given that Dr Paul has a long record in Congress, why don't you
fucking look?
If Paul is consistent; your argument is shit. If Paul is
inconsistent, Paul is hypocritical.
I think we all know how this ends.
|3.2.09 @ 8:47PM|#
So, J sub D, can you say, based on that tiny (dangerous?)
bit of knowledge, whether Paul's earmarking likely fattened the
bill or merely re-shaped a piggy of already determined
size?
It fattens next year's bill.
|3.3.09 @ 9:17AM|#
Nash asked,
Please explain to the rest of us how letting the Executive branch spend money however it pleases with no input from the legislative is somehow libertarian.
First, you are using the same boilerplate justification super
statist harry reid does. That should concern a libertarian.
Second, the executive branch agencies have conflict of interest and
bidding regulations they operate under earmarks don't
Third, earmarks have become a massive form of legalized
corruption.
Take of the paul goggles and Put on your libertarian goggles. If
you do that you would see that his behavior is indefensible.
MORE ON THE Murtha / Visclosky / Moran / PMA scandal:
Capitol Hill argues that it's better to have Congress delineate spending on projects rather than faceless bureaucrats in federal agencies,
but they (EDIT: faceless bureaucrats) have procurement rules imposed on their spending, including competitive bidding and conflict-of-interest restrictions that have the weight of criminal law.
Earmarks bypass all of that, and allow elected officials to set up contribution machines such as PMA.
In essence, they pay for their continued incumbency with our tax dollars, and regardless of how much that costs, it's simply not democracy and it's simply corruption.
Sean Scallon|3.3.09 @ 1:27PM|#
So I take it the Cosmos want Paul to be hoisted on his own
petard because he fullfills his constituents wishes for earmarks
and votes against them? Apparently he's not pure enough for all the
sinners and bailout supporters of AIG on the Orange Line to make
fun of?
As Christ would say to the Pharisees "If a sheep of yours ran away
on a Sunday do you think God would strike down if you violated the
Sabbath to go retrieve it?"
Or better yet lets come it at from a libertarian point of view
shall we? Courtsey of the Onion:
"Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department to Save Burning
Home."
Like the Pharisees, your supposed zealotry only winds up making you
all more foolish.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245