Unbelievable! Well…. not really. Rand Paul ran as a Tea Party supporter and touted how he would fight to end earmarks. He has not even assumed office, and this vow is being jettisoned in favor of pragmatic politics. Paul now says that, as long as there are earmarks, he will add his share of them in legislation so that Kentucky will get its fair share. This comes from a recent article from ThinkProgress.
Of course, if Paul can ask for and obtain earmarks for his state, who do you think his big campaign donors will be in upcoming elections? Yep! I predicted this sort of thing would happen pretty fast, but this takes the cake. Paul has not even assumed office!
This quote from the ThinkProgress article sums it up even more nicely than my previous article:
If he’s already selling out his Tea Party pledges, as the conservative National Review suggests, Paul may be proving earmark-happy Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) sentiments correct: “they can be as ideological as they want before getting to Washington but will soon discover that things are quite different once inside of the beast.”
It's this "fair share" mentality which continues the abuse of earmarks. It's like saying "I'm for outlawing spousal abuse, but I'll do it as long as it's legal."
If you think it's wrong, STOP PARTICIPATING.
You are actually quoting "think progress." I'm surprised you missed the corrections on CNN & Fox where they said he never said that. Thanks for keeping up.
I don't know what "corrections" you are talking about, but at the TP article, there is a video. Watch it, beginning at 10:15. You will see Rand in person and hear his own words:
AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?
PAUL: No — no more earmarks.
AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?
PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget.
Then, he describes the committee process as the members asking him, "What do you want?" And he says if he thinks it's good for Kentucky, he'll ask for it.
Maybe you can explain that better than I can. Does he mean he WILL NOT ask for pork? That's not the way I take those words.
A quick search did reveal Rand's "correction," where he made a distinction between "earmarks" and "appropriations." http://www.frumforum.com/paul-i-still-dont-suppor…
To quote him: “I never, ever said earmark.”
It's all still pork, regardless of what name you want to put on it. There' a trough, and he's going to feed at it – one way or the other. And the band plays on…..
"Free Man In Kentucky." That's an ironic name, given this map that shows Kentucky is a blood-sucking state. Kentucky gets $1.45 back from the feds for every $1.00 it contributes. I'll bet you a double-cheeseburger that Rand Paul doesn't change that ratio much, if it all. You guys need to fix this and do your part.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog…
Incidentally, the "red states" are most typically subsidized states by the "blue states," and yet, the "reds" are always talking about how people need to stop this entitlement regime and start paying their own ways. If only they would practice what they preach. The whole thing is backwards.
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Subsidized-…
My thought as well. I'm glad you picked that up.