is there a difference between an "earmark" and "pork barrel spending?"

[Mogambo Guru]

of course this is the whole "ron paul earmark" debate... I have tried to explain to someone ron stance on earmarks.. and he keeps telling me i am talking about normal earmarks and he is talking about "pork barrel spending"

So what is the difference? Are they one in the same or not? and if not, does ron do a lot of "pork barrel spending" and how does he justify it?

[Cleaner44]

Is appropriating funds to a VA hospital with an earmark the same as a pork project to build a bridge to nowhere? No.

[Mogambo Guru]

So is "pork barrel spending" just a negative term used to describe a wasteful earmark? Basically they are the same? Or is there a fundamental difference between them?

[Ronulus]

"The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes"

Except Ron Paul does not give them votes. He simply wants to make sure his constituency gets the money back that it sends in to the government.

An example of "pork" would be when certain states where going to become exempt from paying into the federal healthcare mandate for a few years, if they voted for the program.

[Cleaner44]

Pork is pretty much always lame. Earmarks are NOT pork but people have a tendency to use the terms interchangable, like isolationist to non-interventionist.

MYTH: Ron Paul isn't serious about spending cuts because he still uses earmarks.
http://ronpaulmyths.com/domestic-policy.php

[Paul Fan]

Pork appears to be defined as wasteful (local, "non-competitively awarded", or unconstitutional) spending requested by a member of congress for his district.

The problem is that the executive branch spends just as wastefully but that spending doesn't seem to be derided as pork. There is a wrong assumption that if a bureacrat has chosen the recipient then the spending isn't wasteful.

So those who claim to be fighting 'pork' are really just pushing power to the executive branch. (They may not realize it though.)

It is better to attack the root cause which is the excessive appropriations. For example, there should not be an appropriation devoted to agriculture because the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to spend in that area.

[Paul Fan]

Forgot to add: the reason they limit the definition of pork to spending requested by members of congress is because they claim that the member is using the spending to bribe his constituents to re-elect him usung money that isn't "theirs." Powerful members(on the appropriations committee, or in the elected 'leadership') can get waaay more for their districts than the district paid in tax. IIRC, McConnell got a billion (yes, billion, with a B) in earmarks over the last two years.

But all that money would have been spent whether or not McConnell requested it, because it was all approved in the appropriations bill. So the best way to oppose spending is to demand lower appropriations. But no one does that, because at the time of the appropriation (in the spring) the location of the spending isn't determined so they think maybe it will come to them. When the spending is actually allocated to particular places later in the summer, it is too late to object to the total amount of spending.

Everyone fusses about whether to spend it here, or there - but the important decision (how much to spend) has already been made. Ron Paul is one of the only members who votes against the appropriations. And this is why he wants to abolish whole departments (so that there will no longer be a reason to appropriate for that category).