Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Rand Paul on Mitch McConnell's Crony Tuck Away of $2.918 Billion in the End the Shutdown Deal

I am not making this up. Rand says the $2.918 billion funding is a boondoggle, but must go on!

HuffPo reports:
Rand Paul: Olmsted Project A 'Boondoggle', But Necessary

Though he thinks the project has been wasteful and inefficient, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Monday that he did not object to a provision in the government shutdown deal that allocated billions more to dam construction in his home state of Kentucky.

Speaking at a restaurant in western Kentucky, Paul was asked about the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, which received heightened scrutiny after lawmakers tucked funding for it into their shutdown solution. The senator, who is known for being fiscally conservative, notably didn't criticize the inclusion.

“It’s one of these things where we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t -- no pun intended,” Paul said. “Because we’ve gotten halfway into this thing, and it’s extraordinarily expensive and it’s a boondoggle, but we can’t stop, because we need the dam.”


  1. Don't you know that throwing over 2 billion on a boondoggle is 'small government' and fiscally conservative?
    Just ask his apologists.

    Rand Paul 2016!!!

  2. Interesting that Ron Paul was all about earmarks. There are good reasons for earmarks, and it keeps the money away from the Executive branch so the President doesn't get to spend it.

    Fighting about earmarks is a distraction on the margins, which is used to fracture the liberty-oriented people who frequent this blog. The problem is the overall size of spending. As long as the money is budgeted it will be spent. Why not spend it at home, instead of allowing the President to spend it on a bigger police state?

    1. Ah, the famous "Ron Paul did it too" fallacy. As if the very invoking of Ron Paul's name will chase off people who utter legitimate criticism.

      It's funny that it's always Rand Paul sycophants/apologists that complain about critics "fracturing" the liberty movement. The so-called fracturing, if it existed, comes from people like you, who will say anything to defend unlibertarian actions by politicians they have some mysterious blind faith in. This on-going pathetic defense of basically whatever any rhetorically crafty politician who claims to be for "small government" says, is what is causing any so-called "fraction" in the "ranks", NOT the fact that real libertarians dare mention how utterly hypocritical and mendacious the likes of Rand Paul are behaving in order to defend his good buddy Mitch.
      Next you're going to say Mitch McConnell, who cooked up this deal, did it to subtract funds from the federal government so it wouldn't spend it on the police state, because Mitch is all about civil and constitutional rights and small government. Right?

      And by the way, who are you kidding? You actually think this was ever going to impede a president in spending whatever money he wishes on a bigger police state?

      There is no "fracturing". Apologists for Rand Paul's hypocrisy and statist behavior are not part of the same 'movement' as genuine libertarians. Try that tired rhetorical tactic somewhere else, why don't you.

    2. Well, Sam N., another place "earmarks" keep the money "away from"....the freaking pockets of the hapless "consumers"(formerly know as citizens) that actually earned and own it! You know, the ones with the gun to their head and the threat of making you wish you'd never been born if they pony up. The hosts in this parasitic arraignment known as "government".

      Its always sweet and fashionable to focus on the wonderful things that can be had with plundered proceeds as long as you don't think about the innocent person you just beat, stabbed, or shot to get it.

      If there is a Liberty movement Rand Paul has no more place in it than any other neocon, or you. He means not to bury the State but to praise it.

    3. Budgeted money is going to be spent. Slightly better to have it earmarked by my local politician, than to allow the Pres to spend it. Would love to see the overall spend reduced, and Rand Paul voted against the debt increase.

  3. Honestly, you guys have to give Rand a break.

    Turns out he was at Herb's deli and restaurant in Olmsted Kentucky. He ordered one of Herb's huge, top of the line, lox and bagel sandwiches. When asked about the Olmsted "Lox", he replied “It’s one of these things where we’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Because we’ve gotten halfway into this thing, and it’s extraordinarily expensive ... but we can’t stop.” Your confusion is quite understandable...

  4. Unlike you who does nothing but wright smear article, Rand has a real job to do

  5. "Wright" a smear...

    Please don't vote- the USSDumbass has enough moronic thugs.

  6. err, Rand Paul voted against the $3 billion dollar boondoggle.

  7. What the heck are you people talking about? The President can not spend any money without congressional approval. Please explain.