Comments on: Ron Paul Defends Earmarks

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:38:52 +0000

Why don’t we end earmarks and pork and reduce the tax burden of this country. Show me a person who will do that and I will vote for him.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:34:27 +0000

“If you turn in money at the end of the year it should be used to reduce additional money in the future.”

If that is what is happening, and Ron Paul is draining the pool that would otherwise be thrown into something else -known- to be better used, then he’s either inept, hypocrite or uneducated on the matter.
However I don’t think it’s his problem that the system is hardcoded as it is. He also doesn’t request it himself, he’s basically the liaison for the voters who want their projects done. None of the earmarks are to go to him or his close pals, as has been sort of insinuated by anti-Paul brigades. People in the district want something, if Paul doesn’t request it for them even though the vote passes often, he’s screwing his district. And by getting their funds, he’s not screwing anybody else in other districts as they all have their shares of the pool that don’t get subtracted. It’s whether or not that pool of money is to be thrown into something better used is the question and whether congresspeople can do anything about it. If they can’t, get what you can take.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:23:29 +0000

Nick,
That was one of the more reasoned responses. I have always been against the idea that you had to spend what you had in order to get more. If you turn in money at the end of the year it should be used to reduce additional money in the future.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:55:25 +0000

It works the same in the military for the most part.
In the military, when it came spending time, our shop would ask what junk we wanted. We had a budget we were allowed to spend. If we didn’t ask for what we wanted, we got nothing, despite the money was for us, now it’s going to some other section that is going probably spend it on all sorts of crap they don’t need. We could call ourselves ‘fiscally responsible’ for not requesting any more than what we truely needed, but not knowing where the hell the rest of the money is going and foregoing the money allowed for us, it wasn’t in our interests just to not request anything, so we did. Now if we absolutely had nothing whatsoever to request money for, no love lost, even if it does go to somebody else who does get to spend more on crap they don’t need. we didn’t care. but if we (the voting constituency in this case) desired something, our shop boss would pass it up.
earmarks do not increase the spending. that is why we had a limit on to how much we could spend. the spending still gets spent regardless. In the case of the congress, it can either get passed or not. It almost always passes, so might as well use it. it’s a flawed system for sure, but what Mr. Paul is doing is between a rock and a hard place. it’s not hypocritical at all. it’s just looks that way on the surface. Mr. Paul isn’t a dumbass when it comes to economics.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:15:15 +0000

Actually, earmarks and pork barrel spending are two separate things. Please look them up. If you are talking earmarks, the money is already appropriated for the bill. If you are talking pork barrel spending, there is additive spending. From what it appears (and I am trying to be neutral on this) is Congressman Paul is attempting to choose between the lesser of the two evils. He doesn’t want the bill to pass because it is not constitutionally authorized, but if it is going to pass, his constituents will not be left empty-handed. It’s kind of how the system works — regardless of what happens… the money goes down the toilet in his eyes. I do not think it is necessarily right either way, but I applaud him for helping his constituents. I think most of us can agree that earmarking is a bad way of conducting federal business.

By: Verlin Martin

Verlin Martin — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:13:47 +0000

In the pizza analogy, the slices are not equal to the earmarks.

For you to earmark in that scenario, you would have to appropriate fund AWAY from pizza, therefore making the pizza purchase much smaller or non-existant.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:32:34 +0000

John,
Earmarks require adding more money to a bill than is needed so that a certain portion of it can be specifically earmarked for a particular item.

In the pizza scenario, it would be an earmark if we added more than needed and then said the excess had to go to feed workers in another building. If we determine that one pizza will feed four people 2 slices each then that is the appropriated amount. If we then decide to feed the school for the blind across the street and order 100 pizzas and fund them (and earmark them for the school) we have then wasted money because we asked for more than we needed.

PORK equals waste. It adds money not needed so that it can be directed to a special project that should not be paid for by taxpayers.

I think I am familiar with it well enough to know earmarks cost money so by directing earmarks one increases government spending.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:19:54 +0000

John, you are the ones who want it both ways. Ron Paul cannot be for smaller government and then add earmarks. Just because he votes against them does not mean they are OK because he knows they will pass without his vote so he can say he never voted for one (and be accurate) but he still added them so they would be passed.

By: John Foster

John Foster — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:17:17 +0000

Watch this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N331kGvh0U0

By: John Foster

John Foster — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:01:32 +0000

If everyone voted like Ron Paul did government would be a hell of a lot smaller. Now if you want to say you dislike the idea of small governmnet and therefore oppose Ron Paul fine. But you can’t have it both ways. Either he’s for big government or small government. I’ll go with his voting record.