I need help with the earmark question

[Butchie]

I've got a guy interested in Ron, but he has alot of questions about the Galvaston earmarks that Ron put into some bills, I remember seeing a Youtube video where Ron was interviewed about this but in all honesty I didn't think he answered it well, but even so for me it's a small dent in the armor but this guy is pretty dead set on it, so can anyone help me clear it up for him and for myself. Thanks guys.

[raider4paul]

Earmarks don't add to the budget, they make sure that a part of the federal spending goes to their constituents. Why shouldn't his district get some of their tax dollars back? Anyway, that's why he puts in earmarks and then votes no on the budget, he still doesn't think an unbalanced budget should be passed but if it's going to then he wants his district to get some of the "loot" (as he likes to call it).

Also, if he didn't earmark the budget then the POTUS would be able to use that money at their leisure.

[Guitarzan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?313375-Why-do-RP-opposers-call-him-the-pork-king&p=3526502#post3526502

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?310712-Ron-Paul-and-quot-pork-barrel-spending-quot&highlight=earmark

My comment in that thread was:


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.

[LibertyEsq]

Say something along the lines of: "If Congressmen don't earmark money that has already been spent, that money goes to Obama and his departments to spend. Would you really rather Obama deciding how to allocate money that is already spent than your own Congressman?"

[D.A.S.]

The community paid its taxes, so they deserve to get some of it back since it's being appropriated anyway. It's in line with Ron's view on tax cuts: taxes are what the government owes back to the people.

[Butchie]

Thanks alot for all those responses, that will definitely help and I think I understand it better now myself.