Paul reportedly reverses on core campaign pledge

Money talks.

Rand Paul, the next Republican US senator from Kentucky, has done an about-face on earmarks even before taking office.

In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal, Paul signaled a major backtrack on a core campaign promise: cutting federal earmarks. The promise is a hallmark of Republican candidates of all stripes, who advocate that a smaller government is in the national interest and that money doled out for special progress is tantamount to backroom dealing.

"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," Paul told the Journal for an interview published Saturday.

"I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he added.

In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.

His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that's all the money we have. Instead they just say, 'What do you want to spend?' It's all about what do you want instead of what do you have.

Stephanie wrote:Should he allow his constituents be taxed to pay for ear marks for the citizens of other states while Kentucky goes without?

Stephanie wrote:If they don't know what the money is going to be spent on, how are they to know how much money to authorize?

They allocate money to federal agencies and then allow those with the experience to distribute that money as needed.

Stephanie wrote:

They allocate money to federal agencies and then allow those with the experience to distribute that money as needed.

Really? Like they have done with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Look how well that has worked out.

SheikBen wrote:The last comment of the quote was most interesting to me: "It's not about what you want but about what you have." The kind of greed that facilitated the housing mess is evident in governments as well. We seem to have a needs-based model (or, worse, wants based model) instead of a means-based model. What do we have and how is it working? If it ain't broke, there is no sense in fixing it.

We have I-180 out this way, a four lane interstate that connects the middle of nowhere with Hennepin, its capital. Hennepin is no larger than 800. Why exactly is there 15 miles of highway connecting nowhere with a city a fracion of the population of Nitro? The lust for federal dollars, no matter how meaningless their intended use.

Stephanie wrote:You don't like my analogy? Take your pick, Aaron. Nearly every federal agency is wrought with waste & abuse. We're talking about billions of dollars just pissed away.

I like the idea of smaller government, that's what I like the idea of. If I had my way many federal agencies would simply be disbanded like the Departments of Education and Homeland Security. All they do is add layers of bureaucracy, increase cost and decrease results.

I simply don't think earmarks are the problem, they are but a symptom. I hope Jay or Joe or Shelley can secure an earmark to finish Route 35. It should be discussed in committee, there should be debate. It should be transparent. The people should know what projects their money is to be spent on and the people elected to govern should have some say over how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Our Senators and our Representatives are accountable to the citizens of West Virginia. They know what projects are important to West Virginians and to our economy. Some overpaid, hand-selected political crony does not.