Ron Paul and the Stain of Earmarks

[AuH20]

I know this has been rehashed ad nauseum, but I'm at odds with the whole "my community deserves the federal revenue" routine. I see Rand as being ahead of his father, in terms of the issue. I'm still a supporter of Ron Paul regardless. but I must insist that the following did alter my opinion of the issue, if that 31 billion dollar number is correct:


First off, the people in TX-14 didn’t send even CLOSE to 31+ Billion in federal taxes, that RONPAUL has collected in pork.

Moreover, Paul does not have to put earmarks in, doesn’t he take pride in being “Dr. NO”? His fellow Texas reps Jeb Hensarling (TX-5) and Michael McCaul (TX-10) don’t take earmarks, why does Dr. No say “yes” to lining the pockets of special interests, when they can say no? Moreover it’s irrelevant that he votes no on the bills knowing that they’re going to pass anyway, or rather it makes him a horrible hypocrite – that sweet sweet pork gets spent.

I guess you’ve never heard of baseline budgeting or the congressional budget cycle. Future budgets are calculated using the previous year’s budget as a baseline. Any unappropriated funds are generally not budgeted in. Earmarking continues the cycle of increased baselines. Ron Paul’s earmarks increases next years, and all the budgets after that, by however many Billions he scored, in perpetuity.

When you total all his pork, the increases in the baseline, and the interest paid for the increased debt – I’d guess he’s cost America around 100 Billion dollars. I’d say that with my pinky in the corner of my mouth, but it’s really not funny when we’re talking about real money.

You can’t square that circle – Billions and Billions in pork while claiming to be a fiscal conservative, or any kind of conservative. In fact this year alone he’s put in more than DOUBLE the earmarks than ultra-leftist Sheila Jackson Lee. The hypocrisy and lies from Paul really is staggering.

[JamesButabi]

I know this has been rehashed ad nauseum, but I'm at odds with the whole "my community deserves the federal revenue" routine. I see Rand as being ahead of his father, in terms of the issue. I'm still a supporter of Ron Paul regardless. but I must insist that the following did alter my opinion of the issue, if that 31 billion dollar number is correct:

100 billion in earmarks for his district? Where are these numbers coming from?

[KCIndy]

100 billion in earmarks for his district? Where are these numbers coming from?


Agreed.

I call bullcrap on that one until I see actual, confirmed numbers. From everything I've seen regarding Dr. Paul and earmarks, he puts them in bills at the insistence of his constituents, but votes against the same bills if he views them as unconstitutional.

Even for the bills which have made it through I would be VERY surprised if the total amount of cash came to anything near that $100 billion figure. That would be what... 5 billion a year for every year he's been in Congress???

Again, I call bullcrap.

[QueenB4Liberty]

The money will be spent by someone: your congreeman, someone else's comgressman, or the state. The total amount is already designated, ron Paul figures if money must be spent anyhow, might as swell do some favors for those who elected me. He votes no on the principle that govenment shouldn't spend anymore money.

[dannno]

First the earmarks have to be voted into the bill. Ron Paul doesn't vote for his earmarks to be in the bills, it's the other congress critters. I don't know why this issue is so complicated. If you want to complain about the pork going to RP's district then complain to the members of congress who are approving the earmarks and voting on the spending!!

[AuH20]

The money will be spent by someone: your congreeman, someone else's comgressman, or the state. The total amount is already designated, ron Paul figures if money must be spent anyhow, might as swell do some favors for those who elected me. He votes no on the principle that govenment shouldn't spend anymore money.

But some of his fellow Texas peers in the House (Hensarling and McCaul) don't pass along pork requests. I'm a lover of all things Ron Paul, but this is where I make a principled stand against him.

[TinCanToNA]

Ron Paul doesn't have a problem with earmarks. In fact, they are the more appropriate form (vice non-earmarked funds), because that allows Congress to allocate the money, and not some Executive branch agency (which does not have the Constitutional authority in many cases).

It's the spending, and the Unconstitutional bills, that Dr. Paul has a problem with. All this hooping and hollering about earmarks is an exercise in obfuscation. If you're against earmarks, you probably lack a requisite understanding of what exactly they are. If the number of earmarks were reduced to zero next year, the Federal budget change would be 0%.

[pacelli]

I continue to support Ron Paul's principles, but a couple things stained his flawless reputation that I previously held.

Number 1:



Dr. Paul: Michael, how much do you know about that race in Colorado?

One of the two items on my pad are the scrawled words, "The Campaign for Liberty is a political organization."

This explanation of political tactics might sound trite - I don't know. For me, coming directly from Ron Paul, it was educational, if only because I heard it directly from him.

Number 2:

Ron Paul's Incumbent Protection Plan.

YouTube - Ron Paul's Incumbent Protection Plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms)


The earmarks thing has been around for awhile, and at the time I rationalized it away as Ron having to do submit requests on behalf of his constituents, but he still held his stellar reputation because he would vote "No" on bills containing those same earmarks that he submitted. For me personally, I am wondering if this earmark thing is more of Ron playing politics.

Either way, Ron Paul doesn't influence my activism. I still see Ron as a founding father. I'm still doing what I did. He's still the best guy in the House, comparably.

[JamesButabi]

I would be curious as the amount of earmarked amounts put through by RP in his career. Can anyone pull a source of this information? I know for sure the numbers this source claims are completely erroneous.

[sratiug]

I think the constitution leaves cabinet heads with the sole discretion over any funds appropriated to their departments. They do not have to answer to the president or congress.

[AuH20]

The earmarks thing has been around for awhile, and at the time I rationalized it away as Ron having to do submit requests on behalf of his constituents, but he still held his stellar reputation because he would vote "No" on bills containing those same earmarks that he submitted. For me personally, I am wondering if this earmark thing is more of Ron playing politics.
Either way, Ron Paul doesn't influence my activism. I still see Ron as a founding father. I'm still doing what I did. He's still the best guy in the House, comparably.

The local shrimp industry would probably throw their money against Paul if he didn't push pork in their direction. I'm disgusted by our entire political system and I'm dismayed that Ron Paul has to lower himself in such a fashion to merely function in Congress. With that said, he's a quality American, albeit not perfect.

[dannno]

The local shrimp industry would probably throw their money against Paul if he didn't push pork in their direction. I'm disgusted by our entire political system and I'm dismayed that Ron Paul has to lower himself in such a fashion to merely function in Congress. With that said, he's a quality American, albeit not perfect.

He doesn't push pork in their direction, he votes against the earmark then votes against the spending. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? It is the OTHER people in congress who vote for the earmark then vote for the spending. Ron Paul does not discriminate, he forwards the earmark requests from his district in a non-discriminatory manner. Otherwise he would have to reject them ALL, which means his district would be getting robbed AND the money would go straight to the executive branch.

Ya, some other districts don't put in earmarks, but that just means more money being spent by the executive branch. I'd rather it go to the shrimp companies than let the executive branch spend it.

"We need more earmarks" -Ron Paul

If you don't understand why he said that, then you just don't understand.

[AuH20]

He doesn't push pork in their direction, he votes against the earmark then votes against the spending. Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Ya, some other districts don't put in earmarks, but that just means more money being spent by the executive branch. I'd rather it go to the shrimp companies than let the executive branch spend it.

But the real question is? Is the shrimp industry ENTITLED to those funds? This is a slippery slope we need to confront. It's one that's close to the heart of our ideology as well.

[dannno]

But the real question is? Is the shrimp industry ENTITLED to those funds? This is a slippery slope we need to confront. It's one that's close to the heart of our ideology as well.

You seem to think the executive branch is MORE entitled to the funds. Can you explain?

But yes, I think the shrimp company is more entitled to it than the executive branch, so does Ron Paul. Again, this is a very simple concept.

[AuH20]

You seem to think the executive branch is MORE entitled to the funds. Can you explain?

Danno, thanks to the model of baseline budgeting more revenue is set aside each year based on the previous year's outlays. So in essence, the more pork Dr. Paul extracts for his district, the greater the budget allocation will be for the following year. He's indirectly contributing to larger budgets by placating special interests in his district.

[dannno]

Maybe it is people who can't think in more than 1 or 2 dimensions that have trouble with this concept.

If Ron Paul didn't forward the earmarks, then the executive branch spends it. He isn't increasing spending by forwarding earmarks, all he his doing is allocating funds that the executive branch would have allocated instead.

You have to think about the consequences of your decision. Maybe that's the third dimension.

The media is a great example of a large group of people who don't think in more than 1 or 2 dimensions, and that is why they attack Ron Paul on this issue.

[dannno]

Danno, thanks to the model of baseline budgeting more revenue is set aside each year based on the previous year's outlays. So in essence, the more pork Dr. Paul extracts for his district, the greater the budget allocation will be for the following year. He's indirectly contributing to larger budgets by placating special interests in his district.

The outlay, again, would be the same, whether the money is earmarked or sent to the executive branch.

[dannno]

And of course.. earmarks constituting 1-2% of the budget... is this really an issue we should focus so much attention on?

If we ended all earmarks tomorrow, it wouldn't make any difference..

[AuH20]

And of course.. earmarks constituting 1-2% of the budget... is this really an issue we should focus so much attention on?

If we ended all earmarks tomorrow, it wouldn't make any difference..

But it's the principle. We're diametrically opposed to taking funds from one party and funnelling it to another un-deserving party. That's not the libertarian way, no matter how you can rationalize that the executive branch would spend those funds regardless. The shrimp industry, regardless of the unfair trade agreements and backward environmental constraints, is not entitled to that money. I'm sorry but I can't see it any other way. With that said, it's a minor qualm I have with Paul, because of the greater deeds he has accomplished in the service of this nation.

[dannno]

But it's the principle. We're diametrically opposed to taking funds from one party and funnelling it to another un-deserving party. That's not the libertarian way, no matter how you can rationalize that the executive branch would spend those funds regardless. The shrimp industry, regardless of the unfair trade agreements and backward environmental constraints, is not entitled to that money. I'm sorry but I can't see it any other way. With that said, it's a minor qualm I have with Paul, because of the greater deeds he has accomplished in the service of this nation.

Ron Paul is taking the funds from the executive branch (which they don't deserve a penny) and giving the opportunity for it to go back to his constituents who request it (because that is the next best option).

That is the principle.

[isrow]

Ron Paul explains Congress' role in earmarking the budget.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1070

Ron Paul truly believes in the consistent application of principles and IMO he wouldn't do anything he thought violated his principles even for political expediency.

[dannno]

Ron Paul truly believes in the consistent application of principles and IMO he wouldn't do anything he thought violated his principles even for political expediency.

I agree.

The principle here is that the executive branch does not deserve the funds that have already been allocated to be spent.