Ron Paul's Earmarks debate

[ForTheRepublic]

Ron Paul's Earmarks debate as was well explained here:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=earmarks

I often listen to this radio broadcast (link below), not because I always agree with them but because they are the ones who initially made me aware of Ron Paul. There was quit a debate yesterday about Ron Paul's Earmarks. I understand Ron Paul is not perfect and I still believe he is by far the best candidate. I believe we should always vote for the best candidate NOT the supposedly most popular candidate or candidate who we think has the best chance.

New and views:
Audio - There is no perfect candidate: -> http://archives.gsradio.net:8080/unwo/ur08-07-07.mp3
Website: http://www.soundwaves2000.com/unwo/
Broadcast Times: Monday - Friday || 6:00 - 7:00 PM EST.

Some of the callers did a horrible job defending Ron Paul in my opinion. In fact they probably hurt Paul by there out of control type of approach. Ron Paul's name seems to come up every other day. Chuck and Larry Bates have a large audience and would be an good radio show to call and have POLITE debate with. Here is the movie that Larry Bates wrote the script for and was featured in:

Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud) (1999)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778

Surprisingly they are for the current war even though they agree with Ron Paul on just about everything else.

[conner_condor]

I would rather keep the money in american industry and keep the jobs here than send it over seas for others to take the money in and let our own people suffer more.

[Kuldebar]

Good round up of information.

There's really nothing to debate once a little research about what earmarks are and Ron Paul's views concerning them.

I suspect that there are some rather disingenuous people make this into a "debate" and that they have no intentions of being "convinced" that it's a non issue unless one prefers a blank check over a mandatory shopping list when it comes to spending.

Intellectually dishonest people will never be persuaded because they are making an argument for argument's sake and not for the consideration of the facts.

[ForTheRepublic]

Same thing happened today for about the last 30 minutes of the program. :(

http://archives.gsradio.net:8080/unwo/ur08-08-07.mp3

I really don't understand earmarks to well. Maybe one of the more educated people here could call and help them out?

[Kuldebar]

I really don't understand earmarks to well. Maybe one of the more educated people here could call and help them out?

I highly recommend you read this post by Dustancostine:

http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=109301&postcount=9

It's one of the best explanations I have seen yet.

[0zzy]

Here's how I think it is.

We have [MONEY].
[MONEY] goes to
A [DEPARTMENT OF...]
B [EARMARK]

A [DEPARTMENT OF...] gives [DEPARTMENT OF...] $XXX amount of money to manage and spend.

B [EARMARK] is the process of allocating the money to specific needs. Someone asks their congressmen "we need XXX money for XXX". The congressman allocates that money to that need. The earmarks then go on for voting.

Ron Paul votes AGAINST his OWN earmarks. However, he knows it will probably be passed that the money will be spent, either given to the [DEPARTMENT OF...] or the citizens via [EARMARK].

I could be totally wrong.

[0zzy]

I highly recommend you read this post by Dustancostine:

http://ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=109301&postcount=9

It's one of the best explanations I have seen yet.

That's the best explanation by far. :) I was too lazy to find it.

[ForTheRepublic]

Thanks for the link very helpful.

But if you get a chance to listen to the audio they are saying that some of the earmarks are going to fund the Trans Texas corridor/Highway. So in that case is it true that the money is already allocated to that specifically then he basically just specified how it would be spent? Which He then rightfully voted against.

[kylejack]

Look, I love Ron Paul and I think he's great, but I think his position on earmarks is totally wrong. What he's doing is diverting money from, say, the Department of Transportation that might have been spent in a Constitutional manner and dictating that it be spent in a manner not consistent with the Constitution. Voting against the bill doesn't excuse it, not by a long shot. The argument about working to get money back to the district has some merit, but I wish he would only submit Constitutional earmarks, like an addition to a military base, construction of a new post office, or a minting operation. I'm supporting Ron Paul in spite of his earmark position, not because of it.

[Kuldebar]

Look, I love Ron Paul and I think he's great, but I think his position on earmarks is totally wrong. What he's doing is diverting money from, say, the Department of Transportation that might have been spent in a Constitutional manner and dictating that it be spent in a manner not consistent with the Constitution. Voting against the bill doesn't excuse it, not by a long shot. The argument about working to get money back to the district has some merit, but I wish he would only submit Constitutional earmarks, like an addition to a military base, construction of a new post office, or a minting operation. I'm supporting Ron Paul in spite of his earmark position, not because of it.

Well, you have said it before, but most people tend to disagree with you.

You seem to overlook the fact that assigning earmarks are a constitutional congressional responsibility.

You appear to think it would be better to have a government department of dubious constitutionality decide the use of those already looted funds.


Dustancostine's words bear repeating...


Conclusion:

Ron Paul is not only taking the ethical position by making sure money that his district sent to Washington is being brought back, but also the Constitutional position. The Constitution states that congress shall hold the purse strings and earmarks are Congress's way of specifically appropriating funds. Ron Paul is against the money being spent in the first place, but feels that its Congress's job to make sure the money is spent wisely if it is already to be spent because the bureaucracies will not.

Here is an example:

Say $100 million is going to be appropriated to the department of Agriculture. RP doesn't feel that it is Constitutional so he votes against it. It passes anyways because the other Congressmen want to spend. Now RP has a decision to make, either have Congress earmark the funds to they are spent specifically or hand over the $100 with no direction and let the Dept of Ag. spend as they please. We can clearly see what happens when these Departments get to spend as they please, it is a disaster so RP choose to earmark the funds.

[TurtleBurger]

I listen to this program myself, and I sent them an email yesterday explaining Ron Paul's position on earmarks, including a link to an article he wrote for lewrockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html). Chuck sent me a very nice email explaining his concerns and promising to read the article, so hopefully that helped. They seem like reasonable people that are at least willing to give Ron Paul a fair shake even though they are already in the Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter camp.

[kylejack]

Well, you have said it before, but most people tend to disagree with you.

You seem to overlook the fact that assigning earmarks are a constitutional congressional responsibility.
Submitting an earmark for millions of dollars to market Bubba Shrimp is not Constitutional in any sense.


You appear to think it would be better to have a government department of dubious constitutionality decide the use of those already looted funds.
Its nice to call it "looted funds", but in many cases it may very well be spending passed for a perfectly Constitutional department. To divert funds from it to promote Bubba Shrimp is most certainly not Constitutional.

If Ron Paul would just submit only earmarks for Constitutional spending, this would be fine.

[klamath]

I tend to be with Kylejack in that I think that this hurts Paul but in the long run Paul votes against the whole budget. Even a pure congressmen that votes for no earmarks but votes for the budget is far worse for he is voting for every earmark in the country. Show me a congressmen that can beat Paul's record on that.

[kylejack]

I tend to be with Kylejack in that I think that this hurts Paul but in the long run Paul votes against the whole budget. Even a pure congressmen that votes for no earmarks but votes for the budget is far worse for he is voting for every earmark in the country. Show me a congressmen that can beat Paul's record on that.

Tom Coburn's a pretty good budget hawk, though yes, he does vote for the budgets. The issue is not whether Ron Paul is better than the rest of the Gang of 534...the issue is whether he's right, and frankly I really don't think he is.

I continue to support him, because he's the best of the bunch.

[Shellshock1918]

Cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending. Besides, if this is the best the MSM can come up with against Ron, then thats pretty sad.

[Kuldebar]

Submitting an earmark for millions of dollars to market Bubba Shrimp is not Constitutional in any sense.


Its nice to call it "looted funds", but in many cases it may very well be spending passed for a perfectly Constitutional department. To divert funds from it to promote Bubba Shrimp is most certainly not Constitutional.

If Ron Paul would just submit only earmarks for Constitutional spending, this would be fine.

Except you forget that there is the matter of getting money back to his district and earmarks are a way of making that a likelihood.

Remembering that the majority of things the government spends money on is unconstitutional also helps to focus the mind on dealing with the reality.

I don't see the difficulty in recognizing a quandary when you see one.

If you believe that taxes are bad and our government is intrusive you may decide that returning some of the money back to your constituents is a good idea if there is the opportunity.

There is also the issue of actually voting for the budget. If it's not balanced, Paul doesn't vote for it.

But, yes, you are quite right, by gosh if the budget passes all those earmarks might go through and then the money is spent locally by local people which is preferable then it being spent from Washington.

Earmarks are a favorite target of people that want Congress out the appropriations arena, which is kind of misses a big point about having a Congress. The move is to have the department of the executive branch do more of the "deciding" because that's how those deciders like it.

Ron Paul made his earmarks fully transparent unlike many on the Hill.


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. - Ron Paul