How to explain the Earmarks issue from Meet the Press

[shasshas]

Some of the people we speak to may ask about this, which appeared on the MTP interview with Ron Paul today.

My take: Under the current budget and lobby system, every congressman is allocated a set amount of cash to spend in his district. If you do not spend it, congress takes it back and gives it to the White House to spend. So Dr Paul was being forced essentially to spend the cash.

When Dr Paul says he does not support the budget and lobby system, he is saying :-
1) He never asked for more cash than was allocated;
2) When he is President, he will actually dismantle that ENTIRE BUDGET AND LOBBY SYSTEM.

That's my suggestion anyway. Feel free to modify since I don't know much about congress really.

[itsnobody]

Yes Ron Paul never voted for it, but took the earmarks anyway, it's like saying if you don't believe in social security you should refuse social security money, not taking the money won't change the system...

Keep in mind that:
- Ron Paul has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.
- Ron Paul has NEVER taken a government-paid junket.
- Ron Paul proposed cutting congressional pay at the rate of inflation
- Ron Paul declines to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension
- Ron Paul returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year

Taking earmarks is very different from taking money for your own personal gains, like how it is misunderstood to be

[angelatc]

My take is that the House proposes spending X amount, and then the members of Congress decide how best to spend X amount.

Paul stance is that we don't need to spend X amount! But if they insist on spending X, then he wants a portion to to his district, and he has an obligation to ask for the projects that his constituents want him to ask for.

So, people say, "Let's divvy up a billion!" Paul puts in the things that his voters have asked for, but then he votes against actually spending that much.

[Joe3113]

Yes Ron Paul never voted for it, but took the earmarks anyway, it's like saying if you don't believe in social security you should refuse social security money, not taking the money won't change the system...

Well then why is everyone here saying he should refuse MATCHING FUNDS for campaign fundraising???

[Paulitician]

Well then why is everyone here saying he should refuse MATCHING FUNDS for campaign fundraising???
Because he doesn't need them now? Plus, it's not something that is wrong with the system.

[literatim]

Well then why is everyone here saying he should refuse MATCHING FUNDS for campaign fundraising???

There are a lot of restrictions on matching funds including how much one can spend in a State on advertising.

[thoughtbombing]

No matter how YOU explain it away, it didn't come off good on TV... that's all that matters... yea it's about spin control right now, but it didn't look good. lets admit that at the very least.

[literatim]

Ron Paul has never been against earmarks. Congress has authority to appropriate funds under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If they are going to tax his district, he has a right to fight for some of that back.

[Unspun]

He has to take care of his constituants back home in Texas. If they are paying the same taxes that everyone else pays and they get nothing for it while Alaska gets $50 million dollars for a bridge to NOWHERE it's fair that they get some of the money since they aren't getting it in tax decreases. I really don't think the $300k he took in earmarks is that big of a deal.

[Brennon]

No matter how YOU explain it away, it didn't come off good on TV... that's all that matters... yea it's about spin control right now, but it didn't look good. lets admit that at the very least.

I thought it looked fine? :confused:

[Ernest]

Just because RP advocates for smaller government and runaway spending doesn't mean that his district should suffer while the government still operates in the way that they are. Until such a time as the whole government is moving in that direction, that the dynamics have really changed he still represents his district.

[itsnobody]

Because he doesn't need them now? Plus, it's not something that is wrong with the system.

- Ron Paul's own children never took loans....
- Ron Paul proposed cutting congressional pay at the rate of inflation
- Ron Paul was the first member of Congress in the 1970s to propose term limits legislation in the House
- Ron Paul declines to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension
- Ron Paul returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year
- Ron Paul has NEVER voted for an earmark

It's a shame people don't understand this issue, which is very different from simply taking government money for your own personal use, like matching funds

If they're going to tax his district, Ron Paul has a responsibility to give the tax payer money back to the people in some form rather than letting the executive branch use it....

By not using earmarks for his district, he's just wasting away the tax payer money

[Alabama Supporter]

he needs a press release or op-ed on this.

[literatim]

he needs a press release or op-ed on this.

No he doesn't.

[dircha]

Just because RP advocates for smaller government and runaway spending doesn't mean that his district should suffer while the government still operates in the way that they are. Until such a time as the whole government is moving in that direction, that the dynamics have really changed he still represents his district.

Some of the things those earmarks go for though... they benefit special interests in his district, not all the people. Isn't there some way he can propose earmarks that benefit all of the people more in proportion to what they each pay in, not just a few local special interests?

I'm going to caucus for him either way, but I just think he could handle it better.

[hawks4ronpaul]

Yes Ron Paul never voted for it, but took the earmarks anyway, it's like saying if you don't believe in social security you should refuse social security money, not taking the money won't change the system...

It is like being for a flat tax or no income tax but you sure are going to take the standard deductions as long as we have the current system, so that you lose $4,000 instead of losing $5,000.

It is minimizing the damage to his constituents but he wants a better system entirely.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[itsnobody]

It is like being for a flat tax or no income tax but you sure are going to take the standard deductions as long as we have the current system, so that you lose $4,000 instead of losing $5,000.

It is minimizing the damage to his constituents but he wants a better system entirely.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

yes, also Ron Paul's record on taking government money for his own personal gains is flawless

[hawks4ronpaul]

Some of the things those earmarks go for though... they benefit special interests in his district, not all the people. Isn't there some way he can propose earmarks that benefit all of the people more in proportion to what they each pay in, not just a few local special interests?

I'm going to caucus for him either way, but I just think he could handle it better.


An earmark is going to be "targeted" according to its source (transportation bill, defense bill, etc.).

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[synthetic]

When members of Congress earmark an item they are fighting to return money to their district. If they do not earmark their district gets nothing. The money is then sent to the executive branch and spent anyway.

Members of Congress are elected to represent their district, not funnel cash into the excutive branch. Its a bad system where everyone is fighting over money but one that every member of Congress has to put up with.

The bottom line is you don't have to defend Ron. Instead start explaining how the system works. The obligation of get funding back into the hands of their district is univeral to all members of Congress.

[Goldwater Conservative]

If somebody mugs you, but later on offers to return some of the money, and you're denied every legal recourse, wouldn't you take it? Same thing applies to taxpayers receiving the benefits of government spending. Doesn't mean you approve of the process, just that you at least make the best of it.