Why Ron Paul's position on earmarks makes sense

[JordanL]

A representative, especially in the house, is there to represent his district, and is also there to excersize his discretion. Ron Paul understands both of these things.

When Ron Paul puts down dozens of earmarks for people in his district, he is being their voice in congress, allowing their concerns to come to a full discussion and vote.

However, Ron Paul votes against the spending on such earmarks. Sure, he is their voice in Congress, but they elect him to excersize his own discretion. Ron Paul is the ONLY person in Congress that I know of that understands BOTH of these issues.

It means that not only is he willing to make his stand the principaled way, but he's willing to let others who disagree with him speak in the professional sense, even if he knows he's going to oppose them. He refuses to be the red tape between the people and their government, but he demands to be the barrier between the government and the people.

If this is not one of the BEST examples of his principals, I don't know what is.

 

[bgoldwater]

Ron Paul is completely wrong on the earmark issue.

 

[RonPaulMania]

The very fact he discloses his earmarks shows his desire for transparency in gov't. To disparage this is crazy.

 

[xCakex]

Interesting point! blimp for great justice!

 

[schmeisser]

The very fact he discloses his earmarks shows his desire for transparency in gov't. To disparage this is crazy.

Under current rules, disclosing this is mandatory. Did he fully disclose prior to these rules? I don't think anyone did.

 

[schmeisser]

FYI: I do not have a problem regarding the way he handles this issue.

 

[theseus51]

It's like social security. He's against it, and I'm against it. But because we're FORCED to pay for it, we might as well take our social security benefits. Same deal, since people in his district are FORCED to pay taxes, they might as well take pork. It's an inefficient, end-around way to get their money back, but it's their only method, so they might as well.

 

[schmeisser]

One of the most interesting things I have seen in this earmark issue is the complete lack of discussion or critical thinking used by congress on spending. If Ron Paul can just throw his district's requests out there, and not fight for any of them, how does so much of this stuff get through into the bills?

You'd think they would just hack out all of his stuff, because obviously they are not going to get his vote with or without the stuff from his district. Do they even read these things?

 

[moglesb1]

A representative, especially in the house, is there to represent his district, and is also there to excersize his discretion. Ron Paul understands both of these things.

When Ron Paul puts down dozens of earmarks for people in his district, he is being their voice in congress, allowing their concerns to come to a full discussion and vote.

However, Ron Paul votes against the spending on such earmarks. Sure, he is their voice in Congress, but they elect him to excersize his own discretion. Ron Paul is the ONLY person in Congress that I know of that understands BOTH of these issues.

It means that not only is he willing to make his stand the principaled way, but he's willing to let others who disagree with him speak in the professional sense, even if he knows he's going to oppose them. He refuses to be the red tape between the people and their government, but he demands to be the barrier between the government and the people.

If this is not one of the BEST examples of his principals, I don't know what is.

Thanks so much for putting this on here ... they didn't even give him time to finish on meet the press ... just makes me sick

 

[JohnnyWrath]

A congressmans job is to represent the people of his district, not himself...end of story, he put what they wanted in the bill, but he voted against the overall spending bills himself based on his principles and what he is running on now.

Senators don't have to bow to public opinion or will as much, and serve 6 year terms.

Congressman are forced to run every two years...the founders decided this to make sure the "representatives" represented the people or would be voted out quickly. He put in the bills what the people of his district wanted, but based on his own principles of less government spending, he voted against it.

He is simply a victim of the system on this issue...my opinion.

 

[JordanL]

One of the most interesting things I have seen in this earmark issue is the complete lack of discussion or critical thinking used by congress on spending. If Ron Paul can just throw his district's requests out there, and not fight for any of them, how does so much of this stuff get through into the bills?

You'd think they would just hack out all of his stuff, because obviously they are not going to get his vote with or without the stuff from his district. Do they even read these things?

That's kind of my thinking... sicne the ONLY guy who earmarked the funds votes against them when the time comes... why doesn't congress just remove them from the spending?

 

[Alex Libman]

Of course Ron Paul's position on earmarks makes sense! It is perfectly consistent with his very purpose of entering politics - rational self-defense against the government. It's like, if you can't prevent being raped, at least get the guy to wear a condom!

 

[literatim]

When you submit an earmark, you don't put it in the bill. You submit it to an appropriations subcommittee which then, if approved, sends it to an appropriations committee which then, if approved, puts it it in a bill.

 

[Troyhand]

Let's see what Dr. Paul has to say on earmarks. It's on the campaign website now.

Summary:

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

 

[TooConservative]

A representative, especially in the house, is there to represent his district, and is also there to excersize his discretion. Ron Paul understands both of these things.

When Ron Paul puts down dozens of earmarks for people in his district, he is being their voice in congress, allowing their concerns to come to a full discussion and vote.

I think some folks here could explain the earmark process better than this.

Very few earmarks for RP's district have ever passed. That's because he won't play the pork game. To get phony earmarks, you have to support the pork of other congresscritters.

Ron Paul does believe organizations in his district should at least have the opportunity to indicate to Congress their priorities for projects in the district. Ron Paul, in passing virtually all such requests through to the relevant committee is simply allowing their voice to be heard.

I would expect a few of RP's earmark requests have been passed over the years, most likely because they fit into a plan for other earmarks that the Congress was directing the federal agencies to prioritize.

Since RP votes against all these earmarks, his position is correct. However, he does allow the voice of the people to be heard. And the federal agencies do pay attention to the congressional committee requests and so they might go ahead and prioritize the requests for earmarks in the district simply because they would generally prefer to fund projects that the local communities support even if Ron Paul votes against those projects as a matter of principle.

I welcome these earmark threads since we do need to be prepared to counter the ignorance about the earmark process and its history and what are "good" earmarks vs. "bad" earmarks.

Unless you think that only the president and his federal agencies should be allowed to determine funding priorities for federal agencies and that Congress is only to set the total amount but never what the money gets spent on, RP's position is the most principled and sensible.

Without earmarks, you allow the president and the executive branch to determine all federal spending, neutering your own congressional representation in the House.

Why would the Constitution grant the power of the purse exclusively to the House without also allowing them to determine what the money is spent on? You might have a bill where the Congress decides to fund road improvements for national parks. But if earmarks do not have the force of law, the president could grab all that money and use it for anything else he wants, like rewarding logging companies who contribute to his party and building roads for them to cut down forests, all against the intent of Congress in expanding funding for national parks.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. And the House is granted the power of the purse. The Senate is forbidden from even proposing funding levels for programs. The president is required to submit a budget to indicate his priorities but only the House can allocate funds.

 

[Pauliana]

Under current rules, disclosing this is mandatory. Did he fully disclose prior to these rules? I don't think anyone did.

I don't think that rule has actually passed. I think its only been proposed, but he discloses anyway... He's going above and beyond.

 

[hocaltar]

A congressmans job is to represent the people of his district, not himself...end of story, he put what they wanted in the bill, but he voted against the overall spending bills himself based on his principles and what he is running on now.

Senators don't have to bow to public opinion or will as much, and serve 6 year terms.

Congressman are forced to run every two years...the founders decided this to make sure the "representatives" represented the people or would be voted out quickly. He put in the bills what the people of his district wanted, but based on his own principles of less government spending, he voted against it.

He is simply a victim of the system on this issue...my opinion.

A congressmans job is to follow the Constitution and then represent his constituents.

Earmarks are unconstitutional, there is no doubt about it. However, we must also understand that he is working in a system that is unconstitutional to begin with. If we say that he is wrong for inserting earmarks, is he not also wrong for paying his imcome taxes?

This whole earmark issue is the final MSM attack point don't give them any credence. It's really not that big of deal.

 

[kylejack]

Ron Paul's position on earmarks really angers me, but he offers so much in other areas.

 

[DealzOnWheelz]

I HAVE A SIMPLE ANSWER



THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

The Boston Tea Party didn't happen because they didn't want to pay taxes.

"No taxation without representation"

meaning the people did not want to be taxed without someone representing what they wanted their tax money to go toward.

He is the people's voice but because he doesn't believe in the spending he always votes against the spending bills