Half A Million $ Back To The Treasury?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Who is this Rand Paul guy, and why is he violating the Iron Law of Bureaucracy?

The half million dollars represents about 16 percent of Paul’s annual budget. He contended no senator had returned as much to taxpayers, though at least two senators disputed that claim. An aide to Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said his office returned $636,036 in unspent money to the Treasury in Fiscal Year 2010 and another $503,161 in 2011.

Somebody tell Paul that Progress sucks, as in moving budgets in the vertical direction.

via Bluegrass Pundit

23 comments

  1. Attaboy Rand! Now tell your dad to return all those earmarks he made on Bills in which he voted no. Cynical Bastard!

  4. Oh my he returned a half million dollars to the Treasury. Now that is what you call leadership, courage, and integrity. Just think if every Senator and House member followed that example, we might have our national debt paid off in 587,000,000 years or so.

  6. Try Again, Garym. Nobody who actually knows or works with Paul thinks that he is cynical.  Nor, I might add, to earmarks add even a single dollar to federal spending.

    But OTOH, it does give the Anti-Paul robots something to screech about.  Fortunately, their numbers are diminishing in the GOP, especially outside the Geritol set.

  13. You’re missing a subtle but important distinction: he’s not just spending his constituents’ money, he’s spending *everyone’s* money *on* his constituents.

    That’s not a principled stand; that’s just pork-barrel politics as usual. (And wasn’t he one of the four or five or so Congressmen who broke Boehner’s “no earmarks” pledge? Shameful.)

  14. Did you read the WSJ editorial on his personal investment portfolio? I believe it was described as “one step away from a basement full of canned food and ammo”, or something like that. Sounds pretty cynical to me.

    But hey, obviously cynicism works for the guy — somehow he’s convinced the Ronulans that, despite proposing massive numbers of earmarks, he’s somehow managed to avoid spending “even a single dollar”. Brilliant.

    Either way, you’re just going to end up voting for Obama anyway. Go away.

  16. Um. . .I’ve been a regular commenter here for years Garym– and I haven’t seen you around very much.  So who exactly is “swarming?”

  17. No, he didn’t spend any money.  He voted no.  He essentially said “I don’t want to spend it, but since you guys are going to do it anyway, my constituents have asked for this much.”

    Again, earmarks are allocations.  The money is already in the budget – it’s just a matter of deciding who is going to get it.

    And as for that last bit, Ron Paul made no such pledge, so he didn’t break it.   Paul’s responsibilities are with the people that voted for him, not the Speaker, and not the party.

  20. Nope, you’re still missing the distinction. Let me explain it a little more clearly: if Ron Paul *actually* didn’t want that money to be spent, he would have submitted earmarks in the name of his constituents that returned those funds to the US Treasury. But he didn’t — and your inability to distinguish between his rhetoric and his actions is the source of your confusion here.

    Your last point is actually laughably hypocritical, when you stop and think about it. Ron Paul’s happy to use the Republican name, to enjoy the benefits it brings in a red state, and to take whatever money it brings his way — but when it comes time to pay the piper, suddenly he’s his own man. Yet he doesn’t run as an independent…why?

  23. Sorry there mr. Wonder. I work 60 hrs a week, so I don’t have time to spend in front of my mama’s computer commenting on a blog all day. Obama is working hard on trying to get me to stay home all day, but i’m resisting.
    I might not like any of the candidates, but I will eventually vote for the one who wins the nomination. How about you mr. paulnut? Are you going to vote for the Republican winner? You know, instead of writing in Ron Paul.

Comments are closed.