Help! How to combat pork barrel spending charge!

[Shellshock1918]

I'm arguing with some neo-con nutjob on another forum and he brought up the pork barrel spending Ron Paul does. If I remember correctly Ron Paul doesn't filter any pork but eventually votes against it? Any help would be appreciated!

[micahnelson]

If you are on the hannity boards don't even bother.

The point is he doesn't forward Earmarks to increase spending. He doesn't increase the budget. If a group in his district wants funding he passes it along to the house.

He then votes against the budget, not because of pork, but because the budget is unbalanced.

If he did not do this, people in his district would not be represented under the current system. While he wants to change the system, it would be unfair to his constituents to deny them access to the feeding frenzy that is the budget process.

The important thing to remember is, Ron Paul opposes the system and is working to undermine it from the inside- but he still has to uphold his role as a representative.

[Shellshock1918]

How would they not be represented?

[kylejack]

How would they not be represented?
Everyone else gets to submit pork requests through their representatives, so Ron Paul's constitutents should get the same access.

I don't agree with it, but that's the explanation.

[literatim]

How would they not be represented?

They pay taxes and would like some of that money back.

[runderwo]

I don't agree with the fact that these earmarks are only rarely within Constitutional authority. Controlling the redistribution of money is one way the federal government can assert extra-constitutional powers without technically violating the letter of the Constitution. Paul should have only forwarded earmarks that are within enumerated powers, not all earmarks. Then this whole discussion could have been averted.

[kylejack]

I don't agree with the fact that these earmarks are only rarely within Constitutional authority. Controlling the redistribution of money is one way the federal government can assert extra-constitutional powers without technically violating the letter of the Constitution. Paul should have only forwarded earmarks that are within enumerated powers, not all earmarks. Then this whole discussion could have been averted.

Yep, that's my position. An earmark for a post office named after some local hero is legitimate. An earmark for shrimp subsidies is not.

[FSP-Rebel]

If you are on the hannity boards don't even bother.

The point is he doesn't forward Earmarks to increase spending. He doesn't increase the budget. If a group in his district wants funding he passes it along to the house.

He then votes against the budget, not because of pork, but because the budget is unbalanced.

If he did not do this, people in his district would not be represented under the current system. While he wants to change the system, it would be unfair to his constituents to deny them access to the feeding frenzy that is the budget process.

The important thing to remember is, Ron Paul opposes the system and is working to undermine it from the inside- but he still has to uphold his role as a representative.
It's funny when the neocons think they actually have a leg to stand on and then get totally demolished.:p

[Spirit of '76]

The money (discretionary funds) from which those earmarks are drawn has already been set aside for spending. It will be spent whether Ron inserts earmarks or not.

If he inserts no earmarks, some other congresscritter will, or some faceless bureaucrat will divvy it out. Ron's insertion of earmarks is simply ensuring that his constituents get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.

Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.

[kylejack]

The money (discretionary funds) from which those earmarks are drawn has already been set aside for spending. It will be spent whether Ron inserts earmarks or not.

If he inserts no earmarks, some other congresscritter will, or some faceless bureaucrat will divvy it out. Ron's insertion of earmarks is simply ensuring that his constituents get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.
He's taking money that could be spent constitutionally and ensuring that it gets spent unconstitutionally. The Constitution does not authorize it, therefore it should not happen.


Speaking of "slippery", the people who criticize him for this are being extremely disingenuous, since virtually every other congresscritter earmarks spending as well, but Ron was one of only a handful who had the honesty and openness to reveal their earmark requests.
I guess that justifies Ron doing everything the rest of Congress does, like voting for the PATRIOT Act, the War in Iraq, and increased taxes.

No. What he's doing is not right.

[Spirit of '76]

The money will be spent unconstitutionally no matter what Ron does. He votes against the spending bills in toto, but he realizes that they will pass and someone other than his constituents will lose their tax dollars to some other congressional district somewhere, so he ensures that at least some of the money that has already been set aside to be spent will flow back into his district, and his constituents will get some return on their tax-dollar investment in the fedgov.

You're muddying the waters by making it look as if he's requesting new money from the budget to be spent in his district, but he is not. Again, the money is already set aside and will be frittered away by other congresscritters or faceless bureaucrats, leaving someone other than Ron's constituents to be the recipients of all the money that his district sends to Washington.

My last point, by the way, had more to do with the hypocrisy of those who are attacking him on this issue than with trying to justify his actions in this regard.

[runderwo]

I don't think you can guarantee that the money will be spent unconstitutionally otherwise. There are, in fact, several authorized functions of the federal government that general funds are used for.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Use this simple analogy (which I did not think of myself). Imagine that you're working at an office and it is decided that everyone will pay equally for a bunch of pizzas for lunch. You happen to not want to buy a pizza but you're forced to. After they're all bought and paid for, are you going to not eat the slices you purchased?

[kylejack]

You're muddying the waters by making it look as if he's requesting new money from the budget to be spent in his district, but he is not.
No. Ron is causing money which may or may not be spent unconstitutionally to definitely be spent unconstitutionally.

[kylejack]

Use this simple analogy (which I did not think of myself). Imagine that you're working at an office and it is decided that everyone will pay equally for a bunch of pizzas for lunch. You happen to not want to buy a pizza but you're forced to. After they're all bought and paid for, are you going to not eat the slices you purchased?
The pizza is not necessarily pizza. The money might get spent Constitutionally, so to ensure that it doesn't is wrong.

[cjhowe]

RP does not oppose earmarks at all. He actually believes that it is more proper for the People to specify how the dollars already allocated are spent as opposed to leaving it up to the bureaucracy to decide where to spend the money.

[kylejack]

RP does not oppose earmarks at all. He actually believes that it is more proper for the People to specify how the dollars already allocated are spent as opposed to leaving it up to the bureaucracy to decide where to spend the money.
That's great. Specifying to use them for shrimp subsidies is not a good way to specify them.

[DaronWestbrooke]

While this is open, I have a couple of challenges with the pork that I have trouble arguing against at Liberty Forums. The big ones are that he has requested money for items like the NAFTA highway and some sort of child tracking system- both of which he fundamentially opposes in speeches. I understand he has an obiligation to forward those on, and he votes against those, but they were both attached to bills that had a one hundred percent chance of passing so they went through anyway.

How can I argue that if he is fundamentially opposed to the NAFTA highway and for privacy issues, why he didn't just say no to these things or put them on bills that he knew wouldn't pass?

[cjhowe]

That's great. Specifying to use them for shrimp subsidies is not a good way to specify them.

How would the agency that would have had it in their slush fund used it?

[PaleoConservative]

A proper response to this is: Is that all you got????


You have one instance, where Ron earmarked something? Did he vote for the final budget when the money is actually spent? NO! Is there anyone else running for President who hasn't done the same thing only worse? Who else running for President hasn't voted for a budget that wasn't balanced? No one!

Yeah, Ron Paul isn't perfect. No one is, but he is by far the most consistant fighter against wasteful spending we have running for President.

[ghemminger]

This is a non-issue and meant to be a distraction

[kylejack]

How would the agency that would have had it in their slush fund used it?
Depends on the agency. DoT might have used it for road funds to build a road to a new post office. Defense might have used it to purchase military equipment.

[work2win]

The analogy that sounded best to me was the analogy that Paul used at the Taft club.

You disagree with social security and do everything you can to get rid of it, but you are forced to pay into it. Do you not take social security payments when you retire because you disagree with it?

[runderwo]

Social security is based on a (imo weak) general welfare argument.

Interstate highways are based on a national defense argument.

Shrimp subsidies are not based in any argument supported by the Constitution.

[Corydoras]

Shellshock, I think the key terms are transparency, and constituency representation. Earmarking is a much more transparent way of funding than a bureaucracy distributing it behind closed doors. And Ron Paul does have a constituency to represent, and he is doing so when he passes along their requests-- it's part of his job to serve his constituency.