Ron Paul and "pork barrel spending"

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I go on various boards sometimes and try to talk up RP.

And this one guy keeps bringing up that Ron puts all kinds of pork into bills that he knows will pass, then votes against them.

Is this true? Any info on this?

[Buchananite]

Indeed, it is a matter of record.

But I am not a purist, and I will proudly support Ron Paul in 2012.

[sailingaway]

The entire 'earmark' issue is a desire to get more power to the executive, Frum even recently admitted it in an interview. The 'natural result' of having an outcry over 'earmarks' is to give the President a line item veto or to come up with 'rules' requiring executive input to budgeting.

That is dangerous, and against our Constitution which requires the power of the purse be in the legislature as a separation of powers issue dating back to the Magna Carta, to prevent the executive/King from being a dictator.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

The bad things about earmarks are 1) that the money is spent at all, and 2) using it to buy votes as with the Cornhusker Kickback in Obamacare.

But 1) Ron votes against the spending bill AND the bill without earmarks would still give the money -- the president would just get a blank check to dole out behind closed doors to cronies,

AND

2) Ron NEVER sells his vote for earmarks -- he votes against the bill regardless of whether the earmark gets in.

In short, Ron is correct on this issue.

[Kregisen]

The entire 'earmark' issue is a desire to get more power to the executive, Frum even recently admitted it in an interview. The 'natural result' of having an outcry over 'earmarks' is to give the President a line item veto or to come up with 'rules' requiring executive input to budgeting.

That is dangerous, and against our Constitution which requires the power of the purse be in the legislature as a separation of powers issue dating back to the Magna Carta, to prevent the executive/King from being a dictator.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

The bad things about earmarks are 1) that the money is spent at all, and 2) using it to buy votes as with the Cornhusker Kickback in Obamacare.

But 1) Ron votes against the spending bill AND the bill without earmarks would still give the money -- the president would just get a blank check to dole out behind closed doors to cronies,

AND

2) Ron NEVER sells his vote for earmarks -- he votes against the bill regardless of whether the earmark gets in.

In short, Ron is correct on this issue.

Explained it better than I could.

What people don't realize is earmarks do not increase spending. They simply allocate spending in a bill from the executive branch to Congress.

[iamse7en]

Great summary sailingaway! Thank you.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

The entire 'earmark' issue is a desire to get more power to the executive, Frum even recently admitted it in an interview. The 'natural result' of having an outcry over 'earmarks' is to give the President a line item veto or to come up with 'rules' requiring executive input to budgeting.

That is dangerous, and against our Constitution which requires the power of the purse be in the legislature as a separation of powers issue dating back to the Magna Carta, to prevent the executive/King from being a dictator.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

The bad things about earmarks are 1) that the money is spent at all, and 2) using it to buy votes as with the Cornhusker Kickback in Obamacare.

But 1) Ron votes against the spending bill AND the bill without earmarks would still give the money -- the president would just get a blank check to dole out behind closed doors to cronies,

AND

2) Ron NEVER sells his vote for earmarks -- he votes against the bill regardless of whether the earmark gets in.

In short, Ron is correct on this issue.

Thanks man, if you dont mind and copied and pasted this on the forum I was talking about. :D

[Acala]

Congress is SUPPOSED to earmark money. Congress is SUPPOSED to specify what it is spending taxpayer money on. Unfortunately, the lazy SOBs have gotten in the habit of just handing the Executive great big bags of money and saying "spend this on roads or some shit." And now this has been going on so long and has become so pervasive that people are starting to gripe about it whenever Congress DOES try to specify spending targets. Amazing.

Ron is correct, as usual.

[Theocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

[Invi]

What sailingaway said, exactly.
I've had this brought up against me before by a liberal friend of mine wo thought it made him a hyposrite. After I explained it, she is still not a supporter, but at least she understands a bit better.

[bill1971]

Wow. Great response. I think you may have explained it better than Ron.

[acptulsa]

I have used the response, after explaining this, that his constituents ought not be punished for electing the only honest man in the whole House of Representatives. Seems to be hard for them to argue against.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I have used the response, after explaining this, that his constituents ought not be punished for electing the only honest man in the whole House of Representatives.

So the principled Representatives that don't use earmarks are punishing their districts?

Where in the Constitution does it authorize earmarking millions of dollars for things like shrimp subsidies?

[acptulsa]

So the principled Representatives that don't use earmarks are punishing their districts?

Where in the Constitution does it authorize earmarking millions of dollars for things like shrimp subsidies?

There are principled Representatives? In our House? Plural? Are you sure?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There are principled Representatives? In our House? Plural? Are you sure?

Not many.

The list of representatives swearing off earmarks is a whole lot shorter than the list that do earmark.

[matt0611]

The entire 'earmark' issue is a desire to get more power to the executive, Frum even recently admitted it in an interview. The 'natural result' of having an outcry over 'earmarks' is to give the President a line item veto or to come up with 'rules' requiring executive input to budgeting.

That is dangerous, and against our Constitution which requires the power of the purse be in the legislature as a separation of powers issue dating back to the Magna Carta, to prevent the executive/King from being a dictator.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

The bad things about earmarks are 1) that the money is spent at all, and 2) using it to buy votes as with the Cornhusker Kickback in Obamacare.

But 1) Ron votes against the spending bill AND the bill without earmarks would still give the money -- the president would just get a blank check to dole out behind closed doors to cronies,

AND

2) Ron NEVER sells his vote for earmarks -- he votes against the bill regardless of whether the earmark gets in.

In short, Ron is correct on this issue.

Thank you and +rep.

I always knew the things that you said but you put them in a clear manner I can use to explain to counteract peoples point about the earmarks! :)

[Diurdi]

So the principled Representatives that don't use earmarks are punishing their districts?

Where in the Constitution does it authorize earmarking millions of dollars for things like shrimp subsidies? That's why he votes against them.

[nobody's_hero]

Explained it better than I could.

What people don't realize is earmarks do not increase spending. They simply allocate spending in a bill from the executive branch to Congress.

I don't know if that's exactly the problem that people have with earmarks here.

I'm opposed to earmarks because nearly everything requested is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Congress only has authority to spend money on a few things per Art.1Sec8. So funding for 'exploring the long-term effects of crude oil on cockroaches along the gulf coast' (or whatever, you know how rediculous some of that stuff is) seems to be something that shouldn't even be requested, much less voted for.

Still, it's not a deal-breaker.

EDIT: Now, if Ron could slip in an earmark for a tax-rebate, it would be cool. He could simply put the money back in the hands of the people of his district and let them decide if they want to fund a FEMA-directed empty bug spray can recycling program.

[sailingaway]

Thanks man, if you dont mind and copied and pasted this on the forum I was talking about. :D

no problem at all!

[sailingaway]

So the principled Representatives that don't use earmarks are punishing their districts?

Where in the Constitution does it authorize earmarking millions of dollars for things like shrimp subsidies?

They are cooperating with evasion of separation of powers, imho and should take a class or two on the Constitution. What they should do if they are principled is vote against all the unConstitutional spending, as Ron does.

And MOST, in fact maybe all except Ron, who DO earmark sell their votes for it. they will vote no unless they get their earmark and with it in, will vote yes. Ron doesn't ever vote yes. They have to pass it over his vote against it, earmark or no earmark. As I say, many are now confused on this issue, but being against earmarks is not principled. Being against unconstitutional spending at all is principled. The GOP manipulates voters with this issue, wanting greater executive power.

My opinion of Rand going for it is just that he wants any barriers to spending he can get and knows others use it to bribe passage of spending bills, and doesn't want them to pass. But Ron is the one who is correct under the Constitutional framework. Rand is trying to correct for other unconstitutional things. At least I guess he is, I would be really disappointed to think he was on board with giving more power to the executive branch.

[bunklocoempire]

Bump :)


Bunkloco

[Xenophage]

People who bring this up are really just grasping at straws. Nobody is more fiscally conservative than Ron. The dude probably has other issues, and he's just looking to attack Ron however he can.

[Kylie]

Glenn Beck and his buddies were talking about this the other day, so I called them up.

I asked them if they've ever done the math on how much in taxes Ron's district gives the feds, they of course said no.

Then I asked, "Wouldn't you rather your respresentative get you back all the money you've paid in, or do you think that the Feds are better at spending your money than you would be?". The guys said, "Yeah, I guess that makes sense".

Then I said,"Why don't you do a little homework and see if the amount he earmarks matches the amount that his constituents have paid in. I'll bet those amounts are damned near exact."

They said they would, but I doubt they will. It's a talking point to bash Ron with....the only one, other than their screwed up idea of what our foreign policy should be.

Does anyone know where to get the info for his district so we could run the numbers? I'm willing to bet that the amount they pay in is the amount he earmarks to get back to them.

[Zippyjuan]

For me, the problem is that Ron seems to try to be on both sides of the issue. He makes statements where he says he never voted for any earmarks (implying he is against them), yet he also asks for them. He gets his earmarks while at the same time saying he never voted for any of them so don't blame him. This can give the impression to some voters that he is just another hypocritical polititian taking both sides of an issue and may turn them off from voting for him. I think he needs to do something to better explain his position on the issue.



MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.

REP. PAUL: You, you know...

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why would you load up...

REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.

REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?

MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.

REP. PAUL: Nah! Come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.

MR. RUSSERT: If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...

REP. PAUL: No, I, I make the request. They're not in the bills.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.

REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It's like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you were true...

REP. PAUL: ...the money back for the people.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.

REP. PAUL: No, no, that's not it. They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/

[Mogambo Guru]

Zippy, dont you have to make the request for the earmark before its voted on? I see it as more of a "hedge"... In principle he doesnt want the spending, but if he doesnt request anything, then the bill passes and his district gets no money back. When ultimately he doenst want the government taking the money in the first place, its the fact that its already taken, but still not fully allocated. By earmarking he is just making sure that if a bill passes, his district gets a return on the taxes it has paid in.

[Paul Fan]

Where in the Constitution does it authorize earmarking millions of dollars for things like shrimp subsidies?

The Constitution doesn't authorize federal spending on agriculture. But the appropriations bills allocate funds in categories. When funds have already been allocated to agriculture, then there is no constitutional way to spend those funds.

If Ron Paul gets an earmark for shrimp research, then the funds will be spent unconstitutionally in his district. Otherwise, the funds will be spent unconstitutionally on agriculture somewhere else, as decided by the executive branch.

Since Ron Paul doesn't vote for the agriculture appropriation, and doesn't vote for the bill containing the shrimp research, he isn't responsible for the fact the funds are spent on agriculture.

Given that the funds will be spent, and will be spent unconstitutionally on agriculture, all that Ron Paul's earmark request does is ensure that the spending happens in his district.

[Liberty74]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VoOX9p07xOk#!

Educate the mass tools with this video. That person slamming Paul in chat rooms about using earmarks it simply repeating a disinginuous Glenn Beck and Mark Levin line.

Besides, "earmarking" is less than 1%. It's a political term used to frightening people into believing that is the cause of our debt problems. It's not! Divide that by 335 districts and that is how much spending Paul is responsible for. It's very close to ZERO. :p

Also of note, people in Paul's district has had their money stolen from them by government force. Why should they not receive some of that money back from the government in form of a little project? It's not like Paul is trying to move DC to TX like Senator Byrd was to W.Virginia.