Do you agree more with Rand or Ron about earmarks?

[justinc.1089]

Do you agree with Rand Paul or Ron Paul more about earmarks?


Also, do you think either of them just says their stated position for political reasons?

(Like Ron began saying that to defend himself while running for president because he was being made out to be in love with earmarking, and only earmarked when he thought it was ok or needed for his district for example).

(Or Rand chose to disagree with his father on earmarks in order to help win his election, but really agrees with Ron about earmarks).

If either of those above examples are true, it really wouldn't bother me too much because I can understand Ron trying to defend why he earmarked some when he was being made out to be a "habitual earmarker" in the words of the media, and I could understand Rand trying to distinguish himself from his father as well during his campaign.



Personally I feel like I would need to look into the constitutionality of earmarking, to see if congressmen are supposed to earmark or not, because I'm not sure if they're supposed to or not.

If they are not constitutionally required to earmark then I'm with Rand because even though earmarks only amount to an extremely tiny percentage of spending, if the Republicans are really ready to stop earmarking (which I don't believe), then why not cut out that tiny amount of spending even though its minute?

Anything's better than nothing in my opinion...

[Sola_Fide]

After hearing what the Judge said, I think both Ron and Rand are wrong :(

[RonPaulCult]

Aren't they both correct?

Ron believes that it is the role of congress to decide where and how money is spent by the government. He doesn't want to give this power to the President.

BUT NEITHER DOES RAND. He just wants a committee to review the spending rather than people sticking it into the bills. It's not like Rand wants the power going to the executive branch.

If I had to choose one over the other, I'm going with Rand on this one. But I think both desire the process to be done with more integrity.

[specsaregood]

Agree with Ron. All spending should be determined by the legislative branch. EVERY single penny of the budget should be earmarked.

[RonPaulCult]

Agree with Ron. All spending should be determined by the legislative branch. EVERY single penny of the budget should be earmarked.

Again - I think Rand is being misunderstood. Show me proof Rand believes that the executive branch should be determining spending.

When Rand talks about committees - he doesn't mean at the White House - he means congressional committees.

[specsaregood]

Again - I think Rand is being misunderstood. Show me proof Rand believes that the executive branch should be determining spending.


I don't disagree with that statement one bit. I was referring to the common interpretation of their rhetoric. In reality I think their positions are identical. I just happen to agree with Ron's rhetoric.

[MRoCkEd]

I go back and forth on this. I guess Rand is right if he says all spending should be designated in committee process, and last minute "earmarks," usually used to swing over votes for a big spending bill, should be banned.

[low preference guy]

Agree with Ron. All spending should be determined by the legislative branch. EVERY single penny of the budget should be earmarked.

Right. But you eliminate can all earmarks and not appropriate the money that was going to fund them, that way the earmarks are removed and the money is not spent it all.

[specsaregood]

Right. But you eliminate can all earmarks and not appropriate the money that was going to fund them, that way the earmarks are removed and the money is not spent it all.

IIRC, from what Ron has said the total budget is already decided upon before the earmarks are submitted. ie: they decide how much they are going to spend first.
Which sorta goes along with the definition for earmark:


–verb (used with object)
3. to set aside for a specific purpose, use, recipient, etc.:

You can't very well "set aside" something that you dont' have yet.

Ron's method/tactic really is a "have your cake and eat it too" dealio. I like it, if everybody else voted like him it wouldn't be a problem.

[dannno]

Ron Paul is right because he always votes against the spending bills, he simply ensures that if fools in DC decide to spend it that it is decided by the correct branch of government.

Rand hasn't even voted on a bill yet.

[low preference guy]

IIRC, from what Ron has said the total budget is already decided upon before the earmarks are submitted. ie: they decide how much they are going to spend first.
Which sorta goes along with the definition for earmark:

You can't very well "set aside" something that you dont' have yet.

Ron's method/tactic really is a "have your cake and eat it too" dealio. I like it, if everybody else voted like him it wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure I understand. Does eliminating all earmarks mean that Congress doesn't decide even where one penny of the budget will be spent?

[paulitics]

I agree more with Ron on this.

[specsaregood]

I'm not sure I understand. Does eliminating all earmarks mean that Congress doesn't decide even where one penny of the budget will be spent?

That's a damn good question, ain't it. I guess it depends on your definition of "earmarks" is also.

[low preference guy]

That's a damn good question, ain't it. I guess it depends on your definition of "earmarks" is also.

My guess is the answer is "no", but explaining the answer would probably require a precise definition of earmark and knowledge about the internal workings of Congress.

[MRoCkEd]

That would actually probably be better if congress could only decide how large the budget would be, not anything that's in it... lol

[dannno]

I'm not sure I understand. Does eliminating all earmarks mean that Congress doesn't decide even where one penny of the budget will be spent?

I think the biggest problem is the lack of knowledge by the general public on earmarks and how they work.

Perhaps there needs to be an amendment that all spending in bills shall be appropriated by congress. Err wait, isn't that already in the Constitution? Maybe we just need to follow that little rule. That way they can't make a $5 billion spending bill, appropriate $4.5 billion for items in the bill and then pre-plan to spend $0.5 billion to pay off politicians to build special projects in their district.

It seems like this would be a practical way to, in effect, 'ban earmarks' as we know them today.

[Wesley123]

I think Rand's idea is better. It restricts Congress more, while still retaining the ability.

But, it might just be better to do away with them completely.

[specsaregood]

My guess is the answer is "no", but explaining the answer would probably require a precise definition of earmark and knowledge about the internal workings of Congress.

Yeah, just another sign of how screwed up our shiz is. That nobody can even properly debate subjects because of so many definitions and twisted obfuscation.


That would actually probably be better if congress could only decide how large the budget would be, not anything that's in it... lol
And have how the money is spent decided by unnamed, faceless, unelected people? No, thanks.

[Melissa]

there is a senator on Cspan right now talking about earmarks..seems he is on the side of Ron.....The senator is from OK

[lester1/2jr]

agree w/ others that they are both kind of right. it's not the huge whooping deal that John McCain and the like make it out to be, at the same time it has obviously gotten out of hand.

[low preference guy]

there is a senator on Cspan right now talking about earmarks..seems he is on the side of Ron.....The senator is from OK

probably infohe

[wormyguy]

I'm more inclined towards Rand's position on this one. Of course, he's yet to be seated and voting.

[dannno]

But seriously, anybody who is reading this and hasn't read a lot about Ron on this issue of earmarks before, just know that all Ron does is pass up projects from his district to be put in the proverbial 'hat' with the others. Technically it is part of his job. He's not the one who decides which ones end up in what bill, and he always votes against the bills. You can't blame him, I mean, even if he refused to pass up projects someone else would pass them up from another district and tag theirs in instead.. or it gets spent by the Executive Branch.. Why cripple his district like that when there's nothing he can do about it?

[Melissa]

probably infohe

Yes... is he any good? He is talking like Ron does on this issue

[Feeding the Abscess]

Inhofe is for PATRIOT Act, wiretapping, interventionist foreign policy.

In short, he's awful.

I'm with Ron's rhetoric over Rand's.

However, I do feel there should be a distinction between what the Senate and House do. Earmarks could be removed from the Senate if the 17th amendment were repealed, and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Perhaps Rand is coming from that angle.

[Number19]

I'm not sure I understand. Does eliminating all earmarks mean that Congress doesn't decide even where one penny of the budget will be spent?Funds are budgeted to the various agencies. Look at the historical records of the CBO. Government spending increases every year and it doesn't matter if D's or R's are in power and it doesn't matter if we are in recession or expansion. These agencies get a yearly increase in their budget to keep pace with inflation. Without earmarks, this cash just flows into the agencies without direction from Congress.

Congress can and often does specify with broad strokes where money is to be directed, but the details of spending and distribution are still left to the bureaucrats.

Earmarks takes away this bureaucratic responsibility and direct funds to specific projects to the benefit of the constituents in a congressman's district.

[QueenB4Liberty]

But seriously, anybody who is reading this and hasn't read a lot about Ron on this issue of earmarks before, just know that all Ron does is pass up projects from his district to be put in the proverbial 'hat' with the others. Technically it is part of his job. He's not the one who decides which ones end up in what bill, and he always votes against the bills. You can't blame him, I mean, even if he refused to pass up projects someone else would pass them up from another district and tag theirs in instead.. or it gets spent by the Executive Branch.. Why cripple his district like that when there's nothing he can do about it?

This is how I feel. I agree with Ron.

[Southron]

I really hate this issue. Period.

IMO, it should be low priority.

We fight over "bridges to nowhere" while billions are being spent on warfare and welfare.

I know it adds up over time but we really do have bigger fish to fry before we go to battle over earmarks.

[oyarde]

No earmarks , no spending by congress not in article one section eight . Everything else back to the states .

[Maximus]

I agree in principle on earmarks, however in practice they are being used to "grease the wheels" and buy votes rather than prevent the executive branch from misallocating the money.

[sailingaway]

Ron. It is a matter of separation of powers and the Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse. In fact, they should earmark EVERYTHING besides a minimal administrative allowance.

However, Rand is making a point about cutting spending and so long as changing their mind is entirely within the GOP Senate's discretion, in case Obama acts out, I can live with it. I think a law to that effect would be as unConstitutional as a line item veto, however. To be honest, I think they are trying to reign in EXECUTIVE earmarks, but I don't know that it will play out that way.