What does Dr. Paul mean by "leave it up to the executive branch"?

[Knightskye]

I read this Reason article, and thought about Dr. Paul's position on earmarks, which is to do his job by appropriating money, but vote against the spending anyway. And he says it's Congress' job to appropriate money, not the executive branch. What does he mean by that? If there's money left over, does the President have the authority to spend it?

"Is Ron Paul Dr. No or Dr. Maybe?"
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131992.html

[dannno]

Yep.

[Knightskye]

Yep.

By Executive Order?

[Imperial]

Earmarks come out of the budget of any policy. It doesn't add on to the total I think.

If Congressmen didn't earmark, money would be left up to the executive branch enforcement agencies to spend, like the dod, dea, doe, etc.

I think though, I am not quite sure. If some expert would come out that would be helpful.

[MikeStanart]

Earmarks come out of the budget of any policy. It doesn't add on to the total I think.

If Congressmen didn't earmark, money would be left up to the executive branch enforcement agencies to spend, like the dod, dea, doe, etc.

I think though, I am not quite sure. If some expert would come out that would be helpful.

Yep

[Knightskye]

Earmarks come out of the budget of any policy. It doesn't add on to the total I think.

If Congressmen didn't earmark, money would be left up to the executive branch enforcement agencies to spend, like the dod, dea, doe, etc.

I think though, I am not quite sure. If some expert would come out that would be helpful.

Right, a more authoritative voice would be great.