PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul and earmarks - how does it not add spending?




Met Income
12-21-2007, 07:16 PM
If a bill isn't final yet - how do Paul's earmarks not add spending?

For example, if Bill A allocated X million in funding and Paul earmarks Y, wouldn't the bill total be X + Y not X?

MicroBalrog
12-21-2007, 07:41 PM
The bill total would still be X, but Y out of that would go to his district.

Met Income
12-21-2007, 07:54 PM
The bill total would still be X, but Y out of that would go to his district.

So why would others agree to that since it means less money for their respective district?

ErikBlack
12-21-2007, 10:04 PM
So why would others agree to that since it means less money for their respective district?

It's a compromise. All of the representatives realize that they can't have all the money for their own district, so they each take a chunk. Ron Paul usually votes against the bill itself but as a hedge earmarks part of it to go to his district in the event that it does pass, which in most cases it does. The theory is that if the money is going to be spent anyway, some of it might as well go to his constituents.

murrayrothbard
12-21-2007, 10:06 PM
If a bill allocates X dollars be spent, and Y of it is earmarked, I believe X-Y is spent by the bureaucracy, which the people have no control of whatsoever. RP's position has always been that if the money is going to be spent (which in most cases he thinks it should not be) then the taxpayers should at least have some control over where and how, instead of some nameless, faceless bureaucrats.

Mr. Coolidge
12-22-2007, 11:50 AM
If a bill allocates X dollars be spent, and Y of it is earmarked, I believe X-Y is spent by the bureaucracy, which the people have no control of whatsoever. RP's position has always been that if the money is going to be spent (which in most cases he thinks it should not be) then the taxpayers should at least have some control over where and how, instead of some nameless, faceless bureaucrats.
Thanks. If true, that makes a lot of sense. I was sure the Doctor had a good reason, especially with 20 years of experience to work the system, but I don't know the mechanics of it.

Zarxrax
12-22-2007, 12:24 PM
It's only fair to earmark some stuff out for your people. They pay money into the system, so they better get something back out of it. Better to just let them keep it in the first place, though :)

specsaregood
12-22-2007, 12:29 PM
From the man himself.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

"Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One"
June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

Met Income
12-23-2007, 01:05 PM
Has Paul ever denounced earmarks before?

hawks4ronpaul
12-23-2007, 01:31 PM
It is when everyone else wants to order a pizza and force you to pay for it. You vote no but claim and take your slice when everyone else orders the pizza anyway.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Gilby
12-23-2007, 01:38 PM
Has Paul ever denounced earmarks before?

He denounces and supports them!

He supports them because only congress has the power to appropriate funds, and because in effect it brings the taxpayer money back into the hands of the taxpayers he represents.

He denounces them because most of them are a violation of the constitution.

Kuldebar
12-23-2007, 01:42 PM
It is when everyone else wants to order a pizza and force you to pay for it. You vote no but claim and take your slice when everyone else orders the pizza anyway.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Nice. And, you may want to have Canadian Bacon on your slice, since you are being forced to chip in for pizza.


I would add:

Earmarks are part of the legislative process, a procedure, such procedures are not outlined in the Constitution, of course, and don't need to be.

What is specified in the Constitution is that only the CONGRESS controls the purse strings of the FEDGOV not agencies in the EXEC BRANCH.

Paul, sees earmarks as often abused but still as a means to keep funding decisions where they constitutionally and properly belong. Additionally, earmarks do not equate to actual spending, because they still must be voted on.

hawks4ronpaul
12-23-2007, 02:32 PM
Also:

The only thing worse than unconstitutional spending is unconstitutional spending without Constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Earmarks provide oversight and accountability to elected representatives by attaching a "sticky note" about the purpose so the executive branch cannot do whatever it wants with the money.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

hawks4ronpaul
12-23-2007, 02:40 PM
Do not confuse WHAT Congress can regulate/fund with HOW it organizes the funding process for legitimate items.

Congress can fund an army but the Constitution specifies almost no details about HOW to fund an army:

Article 1 Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"

When the process is Constitutional but the object is not, Paul heeds the process and votes against the object.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

Cynthia Joffrion
12-26-2007, 09:41 PM
I am not sure what you are getting at but I guess that will work.

dc74rp
12-27-2007, 01:50 AM
When Congress take possession of funds to be spent, it's an appropriation. Allocations simply designate where some funds already appropriated will go. An earmark is an allocation, not an appropriation.

Dictinary definitions:

Earmark: 1. To reserve or set aside for a particular purpose. See Synonyms at allocate. 2. To mark in an identifying or distinctive way. 3. To mark the ear of (a domestic animal) for identification

Allocate: 1. To set apart for a special purpose; designate: allocate a room to be used for storage. 2. To distribute according to a plan; allot: allocate rations for a week-long camping trip

Appropriate: To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education. 2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it.

The President's Office of Managment and Budget defines earmarks:

http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html


OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

The President wants to crack down on Congress allocating funds outside Executive Branch management.

What's Paul say on the subject? According to:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/05/ron_paul_loves_earmarks/


Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he (Ron Paul) says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny.

Here's an article called "What's an Earmark" from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139454/


The U.S. government has earmarked $29 billion for pork-barrel projects this year, according to a report released on Wednesday by Citizens Against Government Waste. The House appropriations committee provided its own numbers, which claim $17 billion worth of earmarks for 2006. What, exactly, is a congressional earmark?

No one can agree on the precise definition. In general, the word "earmark" refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing—a given project, say, or location, or institution. For example, if Congress passed a budget that gave a certain amount of money to the National Park Service as a whole, no one would consider it an earmark. But if Congress added a line to the budget specifying that some of that money must go toward the preservation of a single building—definitely an earmark.

Another explanation from:

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-518.pdf


There is not a single specific definition of the term earmark accepted by all
practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, nor is there a standard earmark
practice across all 13 regular appropriations bills. According to the Congressional
Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, under the broadest definition “virtually
every appropriation is earmarked.”1 In practice, however, earmarks are generally defined
more narrowly, often reflecting procedures established over time that may differ from one
appropriation bill to another. For one bill, an earmark may refer to a certain level of
specificity within an account.2 For other bills, an earmark may refer to funds set aside
within an account for individual projects, locations, or institutions.3

Regarding the latter use of the term, some of these earmarks are included in the text
of appropriations measures, floor amendments, and conference reports to such measures.
If enacted, these earmarks are legally binding.

1 Walter Kravitz, Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary: Third Edition
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2001), pp. 87-88, available at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/glossary/e.shtml], visited Dec. 6, 2004.

2 An annual appropriations act is generally made up of separate paragraphs, each of which
generally corresponds to a unique account and provides appropriations for multiple programs,
projects, and activities as a single lump sum.

3 Such earmarks might also provide spending floors for individual projects, locations, or
institutions.

CRS-2

Most of these earmarks, however, are included in the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees’ reports explaining a measure as reported. These earmarks
are also frequently included in the managers’ joint explanatory statement (or managers’
statement) that accompanies the conference report. Committee reports and managers’
statements do not have statutory force; departments and agencies are not legally bound
by their declarations. These documents do, however, explain congressional intent and
frequently have effect because departments and agencies must justify their budget requests
annually to the Appropriations Committees.

If someone doesn't understand, send them to:

http://thomas.loc.gov

Have them look up appropriations bills. The spending levels are stated in the bills themselves. Then look at amendments that allocate funds. They do not change the amount of funds appropriated.