Ron Paul on earmarking

[Inkblots]

Paul is one of a handful of Members to publicly challenge the House GOP leadership by going forward with earmark requests just two weeks after the Republican Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on the spending practice.
...
Paul said leaders were well aware of his opposition to the ban and his belief that earmarks increase transparency because the public can see where their federal dollars are being allocated.

"They asked me whether I would sign on to the moratorium, and I said no, it doesn't fit my philosophy because I think we should designate every penny that we spend," he said.

Excerpted here: http:// reason.com/blog/2010/03/25/guess-which-republican-congres

Full article here: http://w ww.rollcall.com/issues/55_110/news/44682-1.html (subscription only)

[dannno]

Ya, why the hell should the Executive Branch decide where the money goes???

This issue is a distraction Republicans use to get elected. Not disimilar to their "tough" public stance on illegal immigration. It's just for votes, but it's completely meaningless because they never do anything.

If you still disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, it is because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. So study it. There are hundreds of threads on this topic.

[Inkblots]

Now, I imagine most people on this forum know that Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced or un-Constitutional (read: any) Federal budget. I've seen that fact frequently used to defend him from charges of 'porker-ism' from mainline GOP types looking for an excuse to repudiate him, and that's fair as far as it goes. The problem with that defense is it makes him look slippery, like any old slippery member of the 'Gang of 535' gaming the system.

Another, and imho better, defense (aside from Dr. Paul's own points about transparency, which are also very effective) is this:

While I have seen a lot of debate over earmarks on the intertubes, including the classic "they're only 2% of the budget" vs. "they grease the skids for bigger spending" arguments, what I hardly ever see discussed is that there are 2 different kinds of earmarks.

Appropriations earmarks, that is, earmarks added to appropriations bills, have the effect of increasing Federal spending, and also likely contribute to larger spending increases, through earmark trading and as an inducement to members to vote through the big ticket spending items in appropriations bills just to get their district's earmarks through.

On the other hand, "carve-out" earmarks are earmarks that aren't on an appropriations bill and therefore merely serve to allocate already apportioned funds, rather than leaving allocation of the appropriated funds entirely up to the executive branch.

This latter type is an important democratic tool and is a vital part of the balance of powers; the same applies to the former, but is probably outweighed by the deleterious effects mentioned above (and, no doubt at length below). I'm not sure what bill Dr. Paul attached his earmarks to this time (the article is behind a registration wall), but I believe the earmarks Dr. Paul has requested in the past were carve-out earmarks. They don't add a penny to the deficit, do nothing to increase spending, but do serve to make Federal spending more democratically accountable.

[dannno]

This latter type is an important democratic tool and is a vital part of the balance of powers; the same applies to the former, but is probably outweighed by the deleterious effects mentioned above (and, no doubt at length below). I'm not sure what bill Dr. Paul attached his earmarks to this time (the article is behind a registration wall), but I believe the earmarks Dr. Paul has requested in the past were carve-out earmarks. They don't add a penny to the deficit, do nothing to increase spending, but do serve to make Federal spending more democratically accountable.


That makes sense.

I don't think Ron Paul would lie about the earmarks his constituents are requesting that are ending up in bills, and he isn't known as a 'deal maker'. The other type of earmark sounds like they are making political deals to get the earmarks through.

However I'd actually be willing to have Ron Paul vote on an earmark or two if meant we could audit the fed... that would be a great deal.

I trust his judgment on this stuff.

[Bruno]

removing earmarks is a red herring

[payme_rick]

yah the whole earmark deal just gets on my nerves... I hate when people bring it up... "Do you even know what an earmark is?" is the question I ask... usually get a "it's suggested spending on pet projects" or "not really"...

[cswake]

a better question is "do you know what percentage of the annual budget is earmarked?"...

[slothman]

If you still disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, it is because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. So study it. There are hundreds of threads on this topic.

So if I don't agree with you then I am wrong?
That Scotsman comes again.

And also, don't say, "find links".
At least point to several.
The burden should fall on you.

[Inkblots]

Hi, slothman. Are you saying that you disagree with Dr. Paul's position on earmarks? You certainly are entitled to do so if that's the case, lots of folks on these forums disagree with Ron Paul on particular points. However, what is your reaction to my point above? Do you understand the different types of earmarking and the real benefits that carve-out earmarking brings at no taxpayer cost?

[Knightskye]

So if I don't agree with you then I am wrong?
That Scotsman comes again.

And also, don't say, "find links".
At least point to several.
The burden should fall on you.

I agree with that. "Why don't you google it?" doesn't help sometimes.

[slothman]

Hi, slothman. Are you saying that you disagree with Dr. Paul's position on earmarks?
You certainly are entitled to do so if that's the case, lots of folks on these forums disagree with Ron Paul on particular points.
However, what is your reaction to my point above?
Do you understand the different types of earmarking and the real benefits that carve-out earmarking brings at no taxpayer cost?

I don't know exactly what an earmark is.
Wikipedia didn't help.

[Inkblots]

I don't know exactly what an earmark is.
Wikipedia didn't help.

Okay, I just looked at the Wikipedia article, and you're right that it's a long way from Bronze Star rating, but it actually does give the most widely accepted definition of earmarking, from the Congressional Research Service:


"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."

The distinction between the two types of earmarks I point out earlier I've placed in bold in the quote. Appropriations earmarks are added to appropriations legislation (pretty obvious, eh?), while carve-out earmarks are added to general legislation. Both of them explicitly allocate Federal funds to some specific project, say a hospital, rather than relying on bureaucrats in the executive branch to allocate appropriated funds as they see fit. The distinction is that appropriations earmarks cause new spending (and can be used as a lever to force through spending bills), while carve-out earmarks do not.