House Says Paul Again Set to Return Thousands to Treasury

[HereticHulk]

House Says Paul Again Set to Return Thousands to Treasury
sarcasm/ What a loon huh?

(PressMediaWire) Washington, DC - The U.S. House of Representatives reports that Congressman Ron Paul has once again run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and he will likely return tens of thousands of dollars to the Treasury once again this year. Preliminary estimates forwarded to Paul’s office indicate he has about $75,000 left in his account.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

Paul’s Chief of Staff, Tom Lizardo, said “It is customary that several thousand dollars of expenditures are not calculated until after this year ends, but I am confident that tens of thousands will remain to be given back once the books finally close on 2007, just as Congressman Paul always instructs us to do.”

Lizardo said that the purchase of new equipment, staff changes and postal rate increases made it especially difficult to restrain spending this year. “Considering Congressman Paul’s efforts helped to land nearly $50,000,000 in appropriations for crucial projects in this part of Texas last year, we are most pleased that we were able to once again get the job done under budget.”

SOURCE: RON PAUL TEXAS STRAIGHT TALK

Demonstrating how to lead by example!

 

[Foolmewunz]

House Says Paul Again Set to Return Thousands to Treasury
sarcasm/ What a loon huh?

Demonstrating how to lead by example!

Yep! Saving money on paper clips, staples and filing cabinets by not keeping pesky old editions of his newletter around, yet still finding ways to get the taxpayer to funnel 50,000,000 back to his district. He an Eddamned philanthropist!

 

[FM21.105]

Yeah let's lead by example! Let's place earmarks in our bills frequently

outsidethebeltway(dot)com/archives/2007/05/ron_paul_loves_earmarks/

 

[ZenFountain]

Here is a link to scans of every earmark Paul requested for fiscal year 2008. WSJ estimates that the total value of those requested earmarks was $400 million. I have no idea how credible that estimate is or how many millions of dollars Paul ultimately did haul in for his district. The real genius of Paul's earmark method though is that he slips his appropriations into safe bills, as all congressmen do but then he votes against the bill so he can continue his rhetoric of voting against wasteful spending. A pillar of honesty and integrity indeed!

 

[fuelair]

Is Paul's COS, Tom Lizardo, by chance related to the known criminal Dr. Emilio Lizardo and the clandestine activities of the Yoyodyne Corp. in the "80's? Enquiring minds need to know!!

 

[CaptainManacles]

Here is a link to scans of every earmark Paul requested for fiscal year 2008. WSJ estimates that the total value of those requested earmarks was $400 million. I have no idea how credible that estimate is or how many millions of dollars Paul ultimately did haul in for his district. The real genius of Paul's earmark method though is that he slips his appropriations into safe bills, as all congressmen do but then he votes against the bill so he can continue his rhetoric of voting against wasteful spending. A pillar of honesty and integrity indeed!

I pointed this out to ron paulite friends of mine, and they couldn't understand why this was dishonest. I think I'll have to start these stories as if they are about some other canidate, and then when they get furious about how stupid it is, then let them know I was actually talking about ron paul.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I don't see why it is dishonest. The people in his district pay taxes to the federal government. He is their representative, and responsible for seeing that they get something for the taxes they pay, even if he doesn't think they should be paying so much. He disagrees with the earmark system, but if he makes no earmarks, the money from his district goes disproportionately to support earmarks for others. This puts him in a very awkward position. Is making the earmark but voting against the bill the best resolution? It certainly isn't ideal, but I don't have a better suggestion.

 

[CaptainManacles]

I don't see why it is dishonest. The people in his district pay taxes to the federal government. He is their representative, and responsible for seeing that they get something for the taxes they pay, even if he doesn't think they should be paying so much. He disagrees with the earmark system, but if he makes no earmarks, the money from his district goes disproportionately to support earmarks for others. This puts him in a very awkward position. Is making the earmark but voting against the bill the best resolution? It certainly isn't ideal, but I don't have a better suggestion.

Disproportionately to support earmarks for others?! His district gets more money then any district in the US. So, I would say, based on that, the theory that better fits with the evidence is that he's dishonest. Would you? Probably not, you'll come up with another irrational, avoiding the evidence in front of your face, excuse for his behavior. Which is why I said when I bring up these issues I should pretend they're about another canidate. You'd NEVER make such a ridiculous excuse for another canidate, if someone votes against bills because they think earmarks are wrong but earmarks bills, that's so obviously dishonest it doesn't require discussion. The amount of cognitive dissonence one has to be experiencing to not see that must be phenominal.

Earmarking the bill and voting against it isn't a solution at all, it's just dishonesty. If you think working within the system to get possitive benefits is okay, even if you disagree with the system, then he shouldn't be voting against bills simply on the logic that they are earmarked. He should weigh the pros and cons of each bill, and vote accordingly. But he doesn't do this, he has a standing policy of voting against ALL bills that have any earmarks. However, if he doesn't believe in working within a system you don't agree with, if he thinks it would be better to take a stand and suffer the consequences, then he shouldn't be earmarking bills. He should take a stand and suffer the consequences.

All of that logic is immidiately apparent to anyone being slightly rational about the issue, it's bizzare that you can't see that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Disproportionately to support earmarks for others?! His district gets more money then any district in the US.

Try backing that up with some data.

Also, his district is in the US.

What is one of the key roles of a US Congressman? Taking care of his constituents. Getting some federal funds for his district is in his job description. If he does not do that, he's not doing the job he was elected to do.

Are we having a naive moment here, Captain?

DR

 

[dudalb]

I don't see why it is dishonest. The people in his district pay taxes to the federal government. He is their representative, and responsible for seeing that they get something for the taxes they pay, even if he doesn't think they should be paying so much. He disagrees with the earmark system, but if he makes no earmarks, the money from his district goes disproportionately to support earmarks for others. This puts him in a very awkward position. Is making the earmark but voting against the bill the best resolution? It certainly isn't ideal, but I don't have a better suggestion.

The problem is that Paul and his supporters make a big deal about his returning a few thousands bucks in office expenses to the US Treasury while he ,for all his boasting about being anti Goverment spending,continues to ladel out the Pork to his district.
It's the hypocrisy that gets to people.
And of course none of this changes the fact that a lot of Paul's ideas are pure kookery.

 

[CaptainManacles]

What is one of the key roles of a US Congressman? Taking care of his constituents. Getting some federal funds for his district is in his job description. If he does not do that, he's not doing the job he was elected to do.

Are we having a naive moment here, Captain?

I already blew this irrationality out of the water, if you'd actually read the rest of my post. Having a wee bit of a cognitive dissonance moment, are we? Being completely oblivious to the obvious irrationality of his actions? Completely ignoring it when someone points out, step by step, why it's hypocritical for those who are having a hard time using basic reason?

or can you just not read? Really, the insanity of Ron Paul supporters knows no bounds.

 

[rtalman]

the insanity of Ron Paul supporters knows no bounds.

DR is a Paulistinian?

 

[Tailgater]

I already blew this irrationality out of the water, if you'd actually read the rest of my post. Having a wee bit of a cognitive dissonance moment, are we? Being completely oblivious to the obvious irrationality of his actions? Completely ignoring it when someone points out, step by step, why it's hypocritical for those who are having a hard time using basic reason?

or can you just not read? Really, the insanity of Ron Paul supporters knows no bounds.

I think you missed his point of "don't be surprised a politician is acting like a politician", not that DR is defending RP.

At least, that's how I read it.

 

[Kerberos]

Try backing that up with some data.

Also, his district is in the US.

What is one of the key roles of a US Congressman? Taking care of his constituents. Getting some federal funds for his district is in his job description. If he does not do that, he's not doing the job he was elected to do.

You miss the point, The point is not that he earmarks bills, the point is that he earmarks bills and then vote against them becasue they're earmarked.

 

[Oliver]

yet still finding ways to get the taxpayer to funnel 50,000,000 back to his district. He an Eddamned philanthropist!

That's a no-brainer. E.g. : "If you support the government, you shouldn't
file a private tax return request".

If Paul is opposed to Big Government and the current Foreign Politics,
why should he just let the money slide away for those purposes?

That would be pretty stupid if you believe what he believes, wouldn't it?

In any way: Show me how much people return that much money
back after running his office in an economic manner and actually saving
your tax-money - or how many people return ANY money.

To complain about this by shifting away from the OP facts, which by
the way Paul is doing every year, honestly muddens your skeptical
credibilities. And I'm sorry to point that out.

 

[Tailgater]

That's a no-brainer. E.g. : "If you support the government, you shouldn't
file a private tax return request".

If Paul is opposed to Big Government and the current Foreign Politics,
why should he just let the money slide away for those purposes?

That would be pretty stupid if you believe what he believes, wouldn't it?

In any way: Show me how much people return that much money
back after running his office in an economic manner and actually saving
your tax-money - or how many people return ANY money.

To complain about this by shifting away from the OP facts, which by
the way Paul is doing every year, honestly muddens your skeptical
credibilities. And I'm sorry to point that out.

Ok Oliver.

If I ask for and recieve $30 and spend $35 (oops, overspent, can I borrow $5 more?), and you ask for and recieve $50 and spend $49.25 (giving back .75), which one of us is saving money for the taxpayer?

It's not a trick question.

ETA: nice to see you back.......I think.

 

[Oliver]

Ok Oliver.

If I ask for and recieve $30 and spend $35 (oops, overspent, can I borrow $5 more?), and you ask for and recieve $50 and spend $49.25 (giving back .75), which one of us is saving money for the taxpayer?

It's not a trick question.

ETA: nice to see you back.......I think.

I have no Idea what your example is about. People who voted for
Paul actually expect him to stick to the stances he was elected on
in the first place.

That's what he does, isn't it?

How many people do give money back besides Paul?

 

[dudalb]

You miss the point, The point is not that he earmarks bills, the point is that he earmarks bills and then vote against them becasue they're earmarked.

Knowing damn well they are going to pass anyway. A nice way to look like you are fighting government spending while still getting lots of pork into your district.
I hasten to add that Paul is a long way from being the only politician to indulge in this hypocrisy.

 

[dudalb]

I have no Idea what your example is about. People who voted for
Paul actually expect him to stick to the stances he was elected on
in the first place.

That's what he does, isn't it?

How many people do give money back besides Paul?

The hypocrisy of him earmarking money for his district then voting against the bills (knowing they are going to pass anyway) is not clear to you?

Well,it does'nt matter. Your Idol Ron The Great is not doing so Great now the election has really started,anyway.

 

[Tailgater]

I have no Idea what your example is about. People who voted for
Paul actually expect him to stick to the stances he was elected on
in the first place.

That's what he does, isn't it?

How many people do give money back besides Paul?

The point is, if he rolls in the pork for his district more than anyone else, who cares if he throws back some change.