What to say about earmarks...

[jorlowitz]

Tim Russert was confused. An earmark is simply a direction for money to go in, money that has ALREADY been taxed and put aside for spending. The only question left is where it will go. Paul does what any reasonable representative would do: he suggests it should go back to the people he represents. The bigger point is that Paul votes against ALL spending bills, even the ones in which he has put earmarks. Paul made the apt analogy of a tax-credit--money already taken from you that is offered back to you. Ron Paul thinks since it was yours in the first place you should take it back when you can. So let's sum this up: Ron Paul is against government spending but wants his constituents to receive their taxes back in the form of government spending if that money is going to be spent anyway.

Here are some other forum comments that support the case (sorry, I don't have attribution since I just cut and pasted and slightly edited them)


Before earmarks are ever added, the bill has already passed the committee in Congress. Therefore, the money will be spent regardless. Earmarks are simply a way for a congressman to direct money already approved for spending to a specific project in their district. In Ron Paul's case, he submits virtually all of them providing they come from a community group or local industry group or local government entity who want to make sure that some money is allocated for a particular project.

If the money is not earmarked in committee, it all passes to the relevant agency under the control of the executive branch who then decides to spend it however they like, without any consideration for the priorities of the local communities.

Earmarking does not change the levels of money being spent. A bill with no earmarks costs the US taxpayer the exact same amount as a bill with 10,000 earmarks.

The Founders who wrote the Constitution used earmarks. The habit was far less corrupt then, mostly involving exactly how much to spend on the construction of bridges and roads that linked the early states on vital trade goods routes.

If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money. They can pass a provision, say to improve paving on a road in Yellowstone National Forest, have it pass unanimously in committee and unanimously in the House and in the Senate and in the conference committee and the president and the Dept of Transportation could still ignore it and just allocate that year's DepTrans budget however they want. That is why we have to allow the custom of earmarks. So that Congress and especially the House's exclusive power of the purse remains with the people, not with the executive branch.

[foofighter20x]

You also might add that Dr Paul has no say on whether his earmark even makes it into the final bill. As soon as he submits it for his constitutents, it goes to an appropraitions subcommittee that he's not on, and then onto the appropriations committee, which he's not on, and then gets reported to the floor for debate, amendments, and a final vote, which in Dr Paul's case is always "No."

What's key there is the two committees which have absolute power to disapprove putting the spending in the bill. Paul is absolutely blameless for what those committees do. Yet, even if his earmarks make it through, he still votes "No."

[RonPaulFTFW]

good stuff.

[peruvianRP]

bump !

[t3rmin]

I'm still honestly confused here.

I understand the tax credit idea and getting back the tax money that's been stolen from us. While the system is broken, it makes sense to do what you can to ease the blow...

But why vote against the bill later if that's what we're trying to do?

[t3rmin]

Did a little more reading. Tell me if this is right:

The earmarks are attached to misc other un-related bills. He attaches the earmarks because he knows the bills will pass, but he then votes against the bill because he disagrees with the main purpose of the bill?

So does he agree with the earmarks or not? Still somewhat confused. I know Dr. Paul wouldn't do something sneaky...

[dircha]

Why is a subsidy for a local Shrimp company not just as slimy as a subsidy for a Bridge to Nowhere?

[t3rmin]

Why is a subsidy for a local Shrimp company not just as slimy as a subsidy for a Bridge to Nowhere?

Are they both "earmarks"?

Are earmarks the vehicle for "pork barrel" politics or is this something different?

[Arklatex]

Why is a subsidy for a local Shrimp company not just as slimy as a subsidy for a Bridge to Nowhere?

Dr. Paul wrote them up to represent the people of this district, it's his duty represent the voice of this district in congress so they can be voted on. However, he himself castes his one vote 'NO' if they make it that far.


entiendes o no? :p

[hugh8jass]

The shamestream media wants us to think it like this:

Dr Paul's constituents should get no services in return for their federal tax dollars, as penalty for electing an honest representative.

It's that simple. Russert even tried to frame it to look like the check for federal services is made out to Ron Paul.

[t3rmin]

Here's a quote I found in another thread that makes good sense to me:
"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."

It's a crooked system and Dr. Paul has to work within that. I'm feeling better now.

[dircha]

Dr. Paul wrote them up to represent the people of this district, it's his duty represent the voice of this district in congress so they can be voted on. However, he himself castes his one vote 'NO' if they make it that far.

entiendes o no? :p

It's just really, really hard for me to see where he is coming from here.

Don't you remember all the news about Sen. Stevens of AK and his earmark for a Bridge to Nowhere (which was an earmark to help out a local real estate developer)?

That set off a national outrage over out of control pork barrel spending and slimy politicians.

And now here we have our own Ron Paul putting in an earmark for a home town Shrimp company.

Now, there are certainly worse earmarks, but I was outraged at Steven's Bridge to Nowhere earmark. How can I not be outraged at Ron Paul's earmark for a Shrimp company?

So maybe you're saying I shouldn't be upset with Paul, but so does that mean that what Steven's does is also just doing his best to help out his state?

Why can't he just stay out of earmarking entirely like Jeff Flake and others?

We would be so much better off if he hadn't done this. Ridiculous.

[Lucid American]

Curious, how much tax money came from Stevens' district versus the cost of the bridge? As compared with Paul's earmarks versus his districts' taxes?

[t3rmin]

I understand this now. It's just like his declaration of war on Iraq. Obviously he abhorred the war, but he said if we're gonna do this, we should do it lawfully. Then he voted against his own declaration of war.

What was intended as a smear has actually pointed out yet another example of Dr. Paul's principle.

[t3rmin]

It's just really, really hard for me to see where he is coming from here.

And now here we have our own Ron Paul putting in an earmark for a home town Shrimp company.


Are we just taking the media's word on this? What are the details? Is he irresponsibly dumping a huge sum of money for political reasons? 'Cause that's what happened with the "bridge to nowhere". Knowing Dr. Paul's record, I can guarantee this is apples to oranges.

[dircha]

Well apparently this originated in a WSJ story, but the online story requires a paid subscription to access, so the best I can find is this Fox News story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

"The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing."

$8 million for marketing shrimp? I'd like to know what that actually means, but I certainly don't like it. It's a lot of money and it sure sounds like it is designed to help out shrimp businesses.

If he wanted to more fairly compensate the citizens of his district, why didn't he put in an earmark to create a new celebration called Shrimp Days, where everyone in the district gets an amount of free shrimp in proportion to the amount of federal taxes they paid in?

[gerryb]

If he wanted to more fairly compensate the citizens of his district, why didn't he put in an earmark to create a new celebration called Shrimp Days, where everyone in the district gets an amount of free shrimp in proportion to the amount of federal taxes they paid in?

Because the sub-committees wouldn't pass those through the system.

Why wouldn't he just put in an earmark to give back his constituents all of their federal income taxes? Because the sub-committees are corrupt and would never let that into the final appropriations.

[spacebetween]

Because the sub-committees wouldn't pass those through the system.

Why wouldn't he just put in an earmark to give back his constituents all of their federal income taxes? Because the sub-committees are corrupt and would never let that into the final appropriations.

That just doesn't seem like a solid answer to me. I want something with more validity...

[gerryb]

That just doesn't seem like a solid answer to me. I want something with more validity...

Then do your own research on how earmarks work.

You either participate and get your districts tax money back, or you sit out and your district has subsidized all other districts with their sweat.

[hellah10]

ive just been saying...

"wouldnt it be nice if your congressman (woman) got some of your money back and spent it to better your district?"

that has shut them up for me so far

[spacebetween]

Then do your own research on how earmarks work.

You either participate and get your districts tax money back, or you sit out and your district has subsidized all other districts with their sweat.

Thanks, but I do understand how earmarks work.

Why, though, did Ron Paul choose to earmark money for the shrimp industry? People here have thrown theories around (like the appropriation committee would not allow a Congressman to earmark the money to go directly to his constituents). But, I'm just curious as to the reason for all that money going to the shrimping industry.

I <3 shrimp. And Ron Paul. :D

[jake]

well, I reckon the shrimp industry in Ron's congressional district is a huge part of their economy

look at it this way: what is the alternative for Ron Paul in this situation? Answer: do not put in the earmarks and the money is then available to the Executive branch rather than going back to the community who paid their taxes into the pot in the first place.

does that sound fair? the system is broken, and Ron Paul, like everyone else has to work within the confines of how the system operates until they are able to enact change. something he would do when elected President.

[djinwa]

This is the simplest explanation I've heard so far, useful for the common man.

From Hawks4ronpaul:

“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.”

[dc74rp]

Think about it. If there was no income tax, and the bill to establish an income tax was being legislated, let's say you write and vote for amendments to it that will allow 100 different types of tax deductions. Then when the actual bill is being voted on, you vote against it because you're against the income tax.

By adding adding tax deductions to the legislation are you supporting an income tax? Or simply trying to reduce it's harmful effects? If you refused to amend the bill, are you somehow helping the people who will have to pay the tax?

No. Refusing to add deductions, because you're against the tax, doesn't help the taxpayers. You do more to fight the tax by both amending it and voting against it.

So Paul submitted earmarks.

Earmarks don't raise taxes or increase the amount to be spent. The original bill creates the taxes and sets the amount to be spent, with or without the earmarks. The earmarks just designate where that money goes after the people have already been taxed.

If he's against a bill, then voting against it, or amending it to make it weaker, are proper ways to fight it. Refraining from adding earmarks does nothing to stop a bill from passing, or to reduce the amount of taxes raised by a bill. It simply prevents a legislator from being able to return money to those he represents that had the money taken from them in the first place.

[speciallyblend]

It's just really, really hard for me to see where he is coming from here.

Don't you remember all the news about Sen. Stevens of AK and his earmark for a Bridge to Nowhere (which was an earmark to help out a local real estate developer)?

That set off a national outrage over out of control pork barrel spending and slimy politicians.

And now here we have our own Ron Paul putting in an earmark for a home town Shrimp company.

Now, there are certainly worse earmarks, but I was outraged at Steven's Bridge to Nowhere earmark. How can I not be outraged at Ron Paul's earmark for a Shrimp company?

So maybe you're saying I shouldn't be upset with Paul, but so does that mean that what Steven's does is also just doing his best to help out his state?

Why can't he just stay out of earmarking entirely like Jeff Flake and others?

We would be so much better off if he hadn't done this. Ridiculous.

HE VOTED NO AGAINST THE EARMARK,there is your answer,pretty simple, HE VOTED AGAINST THE EARMARK,even if he put it in the bill,he still voted against it;) not to complicated,now if he had voted yes on the bill ,then there would be an argument..

[jorlowitz]

Why, though, did Ron Paul choose to earmark money for the shrimp industry?

You raise a fair question. I think this is the answer:

Ron Paul's choice of earmarks was effectively blind. He did not find the Shrimp industry any more worthy than any other; he simply included the earmarks which his constituents requested.

The bigger picture involves Paul's disregard for excessive Congressional spending bills. His solution has been to veto them whole-cloth, but to allow his constituents to request their money back in the form of earmarks in the case that those bills pass. As a general antagonist of the entire spending system, Paul DOESN'T get into the details of which earmarks are valid and which are not: he thinks all of the government taxation is excessive and accordingly gives it back for virtually any request.

This doesn't make it any easier to explain to the media. The fact that the earmarks which would have been presented to Paul naturally came from well-organized and lucrative local industries does look fishy (ha...), but that doesn't make the explanation contradictory. While yes, it would have been easier for Paul to Flake-out and not submit ANY earmarks, this would have effectively deprived his constituents of their share. Paul's been saying this all along about government spending--that it creates a 'split-up-the-pie' mania. He simply participated it to the marginal amount he did in proportion to the indebtedness he felt to his district to do so.

[fireworks_god]

So Paul submitted earmarks.

Earmarks don't raise taxes or increase the amount to be spent. The original bill creates the taxes and sets the amount to be spent, with or without the earmarks. The earmarks just designate where that money goes after the people have already been taxed.

Source? I said as much to someone in another forum and they stated that adding an earmark DOES increase the amount to be spent. I need a cold hard fact to dispel this.

[ladyliberty]

I apologize if this has been posted already...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017971.html

[fireworks_god]

Yeah, the same dude lashed out at that writing as well, claiming to have loved reading the occasional Rockwell piece, until now. :D

If introducing an earmark does not increase the amount of money spent, then we should be fine. If it does, then its going to be a lot harder to recover from this, even though, comparatively, it isn't that major of an issue... they'll surely use it as one though. If they can paint him like every other politician, not standing for what he says, then most of Ron Paul's appeal is discredited by them.

[jorlowitz]

I started this post, but want to at least acknowledge that the issue is 'a little' more complicated than I thought.

For one, the controversy over earmarks has not simply been their seemingly ridiculous targets or even their amounts (i.e the bridge to nowhere). One of the largest issues is that congressional bills are more are less stuffed with the earmarks secretively. No debate. No oversight. Any member of congress can submit a funding request without anyone else every really knowing about it. So while the money does indeed get spent regardless the destination and the process of determining it is a major conflict. (By the way, Alaska still received the funds which were supposed to go to the bridge but had to spend them on something else... eventually roads)

The debate about this breaks down to one of reform vs. revolution. To use a touchy hypothetical, imagine Paul voted against, say... oh I don't know, commemorating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He'd have to explain that the real issue was not civil rights (earmark transparency) but the abuse of government power (excessive spending). It is NOT an easy sell, but it makes some sense.

Here were two takes on the issue...

This was the defense from Lew Rockwell:

Earmarks do not increase public-works spending, which he votes against. But they do allocate it—away from the executive dictatorship, and to the legislature. This is in accord with the Constitution

The WSJ had a very different take on it:

It's a case study in how Congress uses the appropriations process to substitute its petty wants for the considered judgments of agency professionals. And it's just the latest proof that, no matter how much outrage the American public might display over these deals--and no matter how often Congress promises to clean up its act--the elected have no intention of reforming the process.

Not surprisingly, the issue depends on who you trust to do a responsible job with the money. In order for Paul to stay out of this debate, he HAS to emphasize that he DOESN'T WANT IT TAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.... that he doesn't want to 'reform' the earmark system, he wants to abolish the spending completely (and the taxation that leads to it). This could be a very hard sell, but if Paul ends up making it past February 5th, I have a feeling Americans are going to understand the congressional appropriations process a lot better than they do now.

[fireworks_god]

So does adding an earmark to a spending bill increase the amount that is to be spent, or doesn't it?

[Mark Rushmore]

HE VOTED NO AGAINST THE EARMARK,there is your answer,pretty simple, HE VOTED AGAINST THE EARMARK.

Yep. To argue the merits or ethics or morality or consistency of the earmarks themselves is to get caught up in the trap that they've laid out. All of sudden his amazing and incomparable voting record is forgotten by arguments over dirty-sound 'earmarks'.

"But I heard he put in all sorts of earmarks to take money, that's hypocritical!"

"He voted against the bill."

"But he increased spending by asking for earmarks!"

Now - you could try and respond here with, "It doesn't increase size of spending, go read a book on how the process works," but they most likely wouldn't.

So I'd respond with:

"He voted against the bill."

"Earmarks are bad = pork = bad, my guy doesn't do that!"

"He voted against the bill."

and so on....

[fireworks_god]

Saying that he didn't vote for a bill isn't an effective arguement. It is simply said that he only votes agansit it after adding the earmarks because he knows it will pass anyways - thus creating the appearance of being agansit it while he is adding earmarks.

Anyways, I personally understand where Ron Paul is coming from, but this is how it is being looked at.

Now, if anyone can demonstrate to me that adding an earmark DOES NOT actually increase the amount of money spent, it'd do a lot of good, because it adds more credibility to the arguement that he is simply allocating money back.

[Mark Rushmore]

Saying that he didn't vote for a bill isn't an effective arguement. It is simply said that he only votes agansit it after adding the earmarks because he knows it will pass anyways - thus creating the appearance of being agansit it while he is adding earmarks.

You buy into this lie that Paul must assume responsibility for the votes of other congressman. When you say "he knows it will pass anyways" you strip him of his voice; however well you think anyone can predict the actions of others, the man said no.

Almost no one is going to appreciate some weasel answer about how "earmarks aren't bad afterall!" Better to hit them with a strong point of Ron's and let them walk away from the discussion with "He voted against the bill," as the sticking point. Hell, maybe they'll go on to check out his voting record.

All IMHO, trying to find some earmark info all the same.

[jorlowitz]

This is from the Heritage Foundation 5 days ago...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1757.cfm


In the past, lawmakers would fund government grant programs and then let federal agencies distribute the funds to state or local governments through statutory formulas or to specific groups though competitive application processes. Today, however, Congress actually determines, within legislation, who will receive government grants by "earmarking" grant money to specific recipients. Earmarks are known as "pork projects." Since 1996, the number of annual earmarks has leapt from 958 to 11,331.[2]

Earmarking is a corrupting process. It effectively gives individual lawmakers their own pot of tax dollars to distribute to organizations of their choosing. So rather than file an application, many federal grant seekers today have to make a political donation. Lobbyists promote their matchmaker role, effectively auctioning government grants to the highest bidder. As a result, the FBI has launched several corruption investigations to determine whether lawmakers based earmark decisions on personal profit.

Because they are outside the competitive application process, earmarks are distributed with little or no government oversight or accountability. Most earmarks are not fully audited, and the result has been cases of earmarked funds being embezzled by their recipients.

Eliminating earmarks would not reduce FY 2008 grant spending, but it would ensure that grants are distributed by merit rather than politics and would stifle the enormous appetite for federal largesse. Worthy projects should have no trouble securing funding based on merit; only the unworthy projects would lose funding.
Analysis: Earmarks are ugly and terribly bad for transparency in politics. But they DO NOT increase total federal spending.

[fireworks_god]

Awesome! Searching for more on this. If I can prove that it doesn't increase the amount of spending, we are on much better footing here. :)

[jorlowitz]

Glad you're relieved, but I don't think it's going to be that easy. Earmarks are THE issue the media and many Americans have latched on to. They epitomize not only the Republican gripe against big spending but the more commonly Democratic frustration with a lack of transparency. Excess. Secrecy. No Accountability. This is what earmarks stand for--and Ron Paul put hundreds of millions of dollars of them into his bills.

It is indeed hard to improve something you want to destroy. Ron Paul doesn't want the spending to exist so he feels his earmark policy is benign. Most of the country, since they DO NOT plan on dismantling large portions of the federal government, will see it differently.

In order for Paul to escape this issue he has to emphasize the following:

a) earmarks don't increase government spending
b) he supports returning funds to local districts since he doesn't believe the should be taken at all
c) he voted against the spending bill in its entirety (not to 'have his cake and eat it too, but to give his constituents a fair shot at getting their money back)
d) MOST IMPORTANTLY, he *supports* efforts to increase the transparency and accountability of federal government for earmarks and everything else

I think d) is critical. Without it, Paul looks, unfortunately like any other politician trying to have it both ways. Those four points, however, hammered home--in the broader context of the libertarian philosophy--should make a reasonable defense.

To offer an analogy: If you're a hostage, do you refuse the snacks offered by a kidnapper? Of course not. You don't grandstand the fact that 'I refused the snacks' while the FAR more important issue is whether you are trying to eliminate the problem, not interact ethically with it.

*note: most people don't view government as an illegitimate 'kidnapper' or thief, so that analogy might rub many people the wrong way. a lot of Americans, especially Democrats, hold out the possibility of Big AND Benevolent government (given the right kinds of politicians and the right procedures in congress). Paul's argument in essence throws their aspirations out too... which if you've seen the Democratic led congress perform is not so crazy. But it does take arguing that the shift America needs is not merely away away from Bush, but away from excessive government in general.

[MN Patriot]

I started this post, but want to at least acknowledge that the issue is 'a little' more complicated than I thought
.....

In order for Paul to stay out of this debate, he HAS to emphasize that he DOESN'T WANT IT TAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.... that he doesn't want to 'reform' the earmark system, he wants to abolish the spending completely (and the taxation that leads to it). This could be a very hard sell, but if Paul ends up making it past February 5th, I have a feeling Americans are going to understand the congressional appropriations process a lot better than they do now.

I don't think Ron wants to abolish congressional spending completely, there are legitimate things the government needs to do, and Congress needs to spend tax money to do those things.

Yes, this will help Americans learn about how government works, I didn't know anything about earmarks until the mainstream smear machine dug up this issue against Ron.

Good thread you started, I hope everyone can read it.

[DJ RP]

The shamestream media wants us to think it like this:

Dr Paul's constituents should get no services in return for their federal tax dollars, as penalty for electing an honest representative.

Very well put! QFT

[Virginia Libertarian]

Great job explaining this I was a little hazy about this entire subject

[dc74rp]

Well, let's get Paul's position on earmarks straight from him. Here's an article from him 6 months ago:


Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-be-a-hollow-one/

by Ron Paul, Dr. 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 necessarily 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.

[dc74rp]

Another article with quotes from Paul on earmarks:

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


Ron Paul Loves Earmarks

James Joyner | Monday, May 14, 2007

CQ’s David Nather reports that libertarian Ron Paul, who has earned the nickname “Dr. No” for voting against any program “not specifically authorized by the Constitution,” has sponsored “no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill” that would benefit his district.

It turns out, though, that for all his scourging of government excess, Paul never has been much of a crusader against earmarks. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”

Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he 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.

In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn’t be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. “I don’t want them to take it,” he says, “but if they do take it, I’d just as soon help my constituents get it back.”

That’s a pretty reasonable argument. I think the Designated Hitter is an abomination but were I (for some incredibly bizarre reason) suddenly named manager of an American League team, I’d nonetheless use it. One plays the game by the rules as they exist even while working to change the rules. To do otherwise is to shortchange your team or, in this case, constituents.

[dc74rp]

Fireworks God,

Sorry about my late reply. I've been away and didn't see your question about my statement: "Earmarks don't raise taxes or increase the amount to be spent. The original bill creates the taxes and sets the amount to be spent, with or without the earmarks. The earmarks just designate where that money goes after the people have already been taxed". I hope this post helps.

You asked:

Source? I said as much to someone in another forum and they stated that adding an earmark DOES increase the amount to be spent. I need a cold hard fact to dispel this.

When Congress take possession of funds to be spent, it's an appropriation. Allocations simply designate where some funds already appropriated will be spent. 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.

EDIT: 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.