Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Nov '10 16:32
    From the Wall Street Journal interview with Rand Paul:

    In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, [Paul] tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

    "So you're not a crazy libertarian?," Kaminski asks.

    Does this mean that Mitch will now stroke his furry head while Paul licks his..?
  2. 09 Nov '10 16:40
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    From the Wall Street Journal interview with Rand Paul:

    In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, [Paul] tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of ni ...[text shortened]... s.

    Does this mean that Mitch will now stroke his furry head while Paul licks his..?
    Link?
  3. 09 Nov '10 18:17
    I'm not your mother and there is no 'zed' in my name. Try the intertubes. There is nothing secret about this interview other than the lie about there being a difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. The fix is in. The evidence is mounting day by day. The 'death tax' that only affects the wealthiest families will soon be repealed. Permanent tax cuts for the top 2% will become law and the deficit will continue to bloom to even more unprecedented levels. Jobs will flee this country faster than you can say 'giant sucking sound.' Since the Republicans want to win in 2012 they have already started the campaign to discredit Sister Sarah. In a year she'll realize that her choice is between untold riches and political power. Which will she choose? Every day you sound more and more like a Marxist, whodey. Will you sign up to lead a cell in Sister Sarah's secret Army or will she desert her post and leave you to suffer?
  4. 09 Nov '10 18:27
    well there is going to be spending and each state is going to get some federal dollars to spend...as they should because its the people in the states sending in that money. Senators do have to lobby their coworkers for what portion of the pot they need...that is the key. What is needed. If a senator is cramming what he wants into the back pages of some 2100 page bill...so none knows its there...thats what causes the big push back. I think R Paul is saying no more of that stuff..he want it out in the open.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    09 Nov '10 18:34
    I wonder what his Pops has to say.
  6. 09 Nov '10 18:35
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    From the Wall Street Journal interview with Rand Paul:

    In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, [Paul] tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of ni ...[text shortened]... s.

    Does this mean that Mitch will now stroke his furry head while Paul licks his..?
    Are you saying you are for earmarks? you would rather not know where your money is going?

    I understand its not the largest share of the Federal budget but with all the press and talk about these secret dollars hidden in huge bills I would think that everyone in the country would be against that tactic that Reps and Dems have been scamming us with for years. Rand wants transparency and so do I.
  7. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    09 Nov '10 18:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    Link?
    Link here:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html
    Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

    Note that the only part directly quoted from Paul is "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests". The rest is the author's interpretation (or wish).
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    09 Nov '10 18:58
    Meanwhile, Rand Paul appears to be teaming up with DeMint for a ban on earmarks...

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/128387-sen-demint-lining-up-support-for-ban-on-gop-earmarks

    Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is trying to marshal support for a ban on earmarks by Republican senators during the 112th Congress.

    DeMint will force a secret ballot vote on his moratorium proposal next week. Spokesman Wesley Denton said DeMint expects the measure to pass the caucus, although it won’t have the force of law.

    DeMint issued a statement Tuesday that named 10 Republican senators who are publicly backing the earmark suspension. The list included Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and John Cornyn (Texas) and senators-elect Pat Toomey (Pa.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.).

    Elected members of the 112th Congress will be able to vote on the proposal, but it is unclear which, if any, of those newly elected members will be present for the ballot.

    The earmark vote pits DeMint, a favorite of the Tea Party, against GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has argued a ban would do little to control spending while weakening congressional authority.
  9. 09 Nov '10 19:25 / 1 edit
    Earmarks get so much negative press -- but there's another way to look at it.

    the normal way in which the federal government distributes money to state and local govts is through the agencies within the executive branch - for example, the education dept distributes money to states to help them fund education - the transportation dept distributes money to states to help with infrastructure projects - various agencies distribute funds to pay for scientific research etc.

    Congress passes appropriations bills that provide the various agencies with a certain amount of money - but its the agencies that decide where that money goes - which essentially means that the president and his cabinet officials have a great deal of power over what states and projects get generously funded and which ones do not.

    The earmark process takes some of this power away from the president and gives it to members of Congress - allowing them to bypass the executive branch and directly funnel money to projects that might not be high on the president's list.

    I think we can all agree that earmarks need to carried out in an open and fully disclosed manner. But ultimately, the earmark process can be viewed as an added "check and balance" that reduces the power held by the executive branch.
  10. 09 Nov '10 19:31
    Earmarks are a fundamental flaw of a district system (which is exacerbated in the US due to the unconstitutional supermajority requirement). Money should be allocated to where it is needed, and every US voter should have an equal vote in that process.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    09 Nov '10 19:53
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    But ultimately, the earmark process can be viewed as an added "check and balance" that reduces the power held by the executive branch.
    Earmarks can also be viewed as a gateway drug to irresponsible spending, and as levers that lead to corruption. Looks like the first battle between the TP and the old guard GOP is shaping up, as Mitch McConnell is trying to do an end run around DeMint to avoid a GOP ear mark moratorium in the Senate.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

    In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

    Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44888.html
  12. 09 Nov '10 19:59
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Earmarks get so much negative press -- but there's another way to look at it.

    the normal way in which the federal government distributes money to state and local govts is through the agencies within the executive branch - for example, the education dept distributes money to states to help them fund education - the transportation dept distributes money ...[text shortened]... viewed as an added "check and balance" that reduces the power held by the executive branch.
    Why do states need federal welfare? Is there any one person or groups of people on the entire planet that does not need federal government welfare?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    09 Nov '10 20:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is there any one person or groups of people on the entire planet that does not need federal government welfare?
    California.
  14. 09 Nov '10 20:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Earmarks can also be viewed as a gateway drug to irresponsible spending, and as levers that lead to corruption. Looks like the first battle between the TP and the old guard GOP is shaping up, as Mitch McConnell is trying to do an end run around DeMint to avoid a GOP ear mark moratorium in the Senate.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is man ...[text shortened]... ple familiar with the talks.

    Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44888.html
    And much like drugs -- efforts to ban them never seem to work. Better to allow them to use the drug, but under strict supervision.


    here's my proposal.

    Congress will first have to pass an "Earmarks Appropriation Bill" that will set the amount of money that will be devoted to earmarks for the upcoming year. There would be a maximum limit to this -- perhaps 0.1% of the previous year's GDP -- (so if the GDP was $15Trill, the ceiling would be $15Bill). Of course, Congress in any given year could choose to appropriate less than this.

    Half of this money would go the Senate and half would go to the House -- in the Senate, the $7.5Bill would be divided up based on the population of each state. In the House, its pot of $7.5Bill would simply be divided up into 435 equal shares.

    Each member of Congress would then propose a list of earmarks up to their alloted amount of money. (Obviously, each would be allowed to spend less if he/she wished). Each member would have to be fully disclose each item on their list and how much money is going to each one. The list would then be posted on-line for a number of days, allowing the public to offer its opinion. The whole thing would then face a simple up or down vote.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Nov '10 20:13
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Meanwhile, Rand Paul appears to be teaming up with DeMint for a ban on earmarks...

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/128387-sen-demint-lining-up-support-for-ban-on-gop-earmarks

    Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is trying to marshal support for a ban on earmarks by Republican senators during the 112th Congress.

    DeMint will force a secret ballot vote ...[text shortened]... rgued a ban would do little to control spending while weakening congressional authority.
    Why a "suspension"? If the practice is so objectionable, why not an "abolition"?