This Is What We Are Facing With The Earmark Piece

[fireworks_god]

fireworks_god writes:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the information I am finding thusfar is stating that earmarking does not increase spending, that the money is already established for spending by the federal government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are misinterpreting what you are reading. The bit from the Heritage Foundation is correct, of course, but only for fiscal 2008, and only because the omnibus bill has already passed, laden with pork. In other words, it is too late to reduce FY 2008 grant spending. It is not too late to reduce FY2009 grant spending.

The wikipedia article is also correct, as far as it goes. But your interpretation of it isn't accurate. The point is, if Congress allocates 100 billion to a federal agency (let's say the US Armed Forces), the agency is going to spend that money on what the agency's directors deem necessary, not on what individual congressmen see fit, and certainly not on (for example) an advertising program promoting Texas shrimp or a Country and Western museum. If left to itself, the Pentagon would have spent the 100 billion (and probably a bit more) on military stuff. When the pork gets added on, the Pentagon is STILL going to spend its 100 billion -- let's face it, we're talking about a Defense Appropriations Bill after all, and the porkers spend their 20 billion or whatever, because let's face it -- their projects and the dollar amounts attached to them are specifically mentioned, so no one can deny them the money. But that leaves the Pentagon with just 80 billion to do what it needs 100 billion for. But the Pentagon can't just shut down for the last two and a half months of the year when the money runs out. Instead, a suplementary funding bill gets pushed through to make up the shortfall. And the porkers lard that up with pork as well!

So yeah, pork DOES increase the size of the Federal Budget, duh! It cannot be otherwise.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Congressmen do not earmark this money, then the respective federal agencies spend it regardless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Believe it or not, this is not always the case. But it is almost always the case -- it is newsworthy when a department finishes the year with any substantial budget reserve. They don't have to spend it all, though.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, Ron Paul stands for not taking the money from the people in the first place, which is why he votes agansit the bill.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If he really stood against it, he wouldn't insert his earmarks. Simple as that.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, he feels sympathy for his constitutents, who have the federal government taking their money, so, unable to prevent it from happening...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He may be unable to prevent ALL of it from happening, but he can certainly prevent some of it from happening -- the projects he inserts himself.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... he at least tries to get it back if the rest of Congress does decide to vote the bill through.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Any other congressman could give exactly the same rationalization. Don't you think they and their constituents are in exactly the same boat as Ron Paul and his constituents? All of them are playing the same game -- "My constituents are getting my pockets picked to fund a roller derby rink in Illinois, so I might as well pick your constituents' pockets to fund my tractor pull competition in Texas." They all play the same game -- all of them. What makes Paul look like such a weasel is he tries to pretend he isn't playing the same game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I am not criticizing Paul for gaming the system, I'm criticizing him for pretending he isn't. It's his whole childish "holier than thou" stance on pork that is so maddening. He is no holier on this issue than any other congress critter. As a matter of fact, he's less holy, because they at least are up front about it and he just repeats this whole "But I voted AGAINST my own pork" charade.

I have NOTHING agansit that. Its pretty damn reasonable, unless someone can come up with some ammo. I had to concede.

Look, unless there is something I'm not seeing here, its looking like he is compromising his own stance by sneaking this pork in. :confused:

[DJ RP]

Except the other congressmen do not vote against the bill. Paul doesn't want the goverment taking our money and he'd vote against such things for the rest of his life, but if they are going to, he'll represent his district. And I've never seen him being holier-than-thou, I'm sure he would agree that the other congressmen have a responsibility to try to get money back for their district.

What is his alternative? To allow his constituency to be robbed and then not earmark some of those robbed funds back to the people who have been robbed so that he can claim some moral purity? Paul does not want anybody robbing anybody, but if he can get some of those funds back to the robbed, why not? He'll still vote against the princple of robbing over and over again.

Well his explanation satisfies me anyway. I think Ron Paul has a great voting record. And he's not trying to hide anything either, I heard that he was one of only 50 congressment who, when requested, gave a list of where all the funds had gone. Most did not. He doesn't like the system at all but working within it he understands that transparency at least keeps people honest.

[hypnagogue]

I can see how this could be a quibble, but I don't see how anyone could construe it as a major issue. Ron doesn't think the government should be spending this kind of money, hence he votes against the bills. If however, the bill is going to go through, he probably ought to get his districts money back, since they've been paying the taxes anyway.

Ideally, Ron could quantify how much his district pays in taxes, and then introduce earmarks for exactly that amount. That may be impractical, though.

Would having his district's taxes turned into donations for the rest of the nation to divy up be more in line with his philosophy? It doesn't seem so to me.

[mbrebstock]

if all congressmen would put earmarks into bills and than would vote against the bill like ron - the earmarks would have no effect.

[saahmed]

I keep going back and forth on this issues. I think I'm going to decide to ignore it. If it is indeed something bad about Ron Paul, it would be the first negative I have seen versus dozens of negatives with the other candidates.

[quickmike]

Its pretty simple.

Lets say you are someone who is COMPLETELY against taking money from the government, just on principal. Then imagine the IRS comes to your house with some armed thugs to take your money from you. They take everything you have in cash on hand and leave. Are you going to ask for it back even though you are against taking money from the government? Of couser you will because it was your money in the first place.

This is exactly what Ron Paul is doing by putting earmarks in spending bills that he doesnt agree with. He figures that if they are going to steal your money from you in the first place, the least he can do is ask for it back.

[fireworks_god]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, mostly because I need some good hard positions to take agansit this. The fact that he is for transparency, the fact that they were able to put this before him means that he isn't trying to hide that he is entering these in, as most other Congressmen do. The fact that this is small potatoes compared to what someone like Giuliani is into helps, as well.

But let's look at it another way.... Ron Paul's cornerstone is on cutting federal spending. Creating an earmark creates more federal spending, because these earmarks create more federal spending. How does he reconcile the difference? Getting the money back to his constituents seems to make sense, but, either way, he IS creating more federal spending....

[Corydoras]

Earmarks are a more purely constitutional form of spending than giving budgets to departments of the executive branch for the departments to allot.

[gerryb]

Ron Paul would NOT be serving his district if he did not use earmarks to bring money back to the district. That's his job.

The system is corrupt. Ron Paul is trying to change the system. He votes "NO" to the final bill, and would vote "NO" as President.

[gerryb]

But let's look at it another way.... Ron Paul's cornerstone is on cutting federal spending. Creating an earmark creates more federal spending, because these earmarks create more federal spending. How does he reconcile the difference? Getting the money back to his constituents seems to make sense, but, either way, he IS creating more federal spending....

NO he is NOT creating more federal spending. The money is already there, the committee just decides how it gets spent/what earmarks it goes to.

[jorlowitz]

@DJ


Except the other congressmen do not vote against the bill. Paul doesn't want the goverment taking our money and he'd vote against such things for the rest of his life, but if they are going to, he'll represent his district.

This still leaves Paul open to charges of either flip-flopping or hypocrisy. First he voted for it before he voted against it. Or he is trying to have it both ways--put the earmarks in and get local support if they pass AND vote against the bill while beefing up his libertarian chops. It doesn't sound good. Paul needs to make [I]very clear that these funds would be spent no matter what (by federal agencies) and that his interest is in changing the entire system of government spending not merely earmarks.



What is his alternative? To allow his constituency to be robbed and then not earmark some of those robbed funds back to the people who have been robbed so that he can claim some moral purity?

The alternative is to let the federal agencies spend the funds as they see fit. You may see this as heretical but many believe that when the government is open and transparent (unlike with earmarks which are often secret) that a reasoned and responsible allocation of funds is possible. Indeed, much of the debate over earmarks is over their lack of transparency and accountability not the AMOUNT of federal spending.



I think Ron Paul has a great voting record. And he's not trying to hide anything either, I heard that he was one of only 50 congressment who, when requested, gave a list of where all the funds had gone. Most did not. He doesn't like the system at all but working within it he understands that transparency at least keeps people honest.

This is very important and will put Paul in a different class of 'earmarker'. Hopefully he'll have time to explain the situation to voters.

[jorlowitz]

--

[Corydoras]

The alternative is to let the federal agencies spend the funds as they see fit. You may see this as heretical but many believe that when the government is open and transparent (unlike with earmarks which are often secret) that a reasoned and responsible allocation of funds is possible. Indeed, much of the debate over earmarks is over their lack of transparency and accountability not the AMOUNT of federal spending.

What's this about earmarks not being transparent? Cite?

[jorlowitz]

What's this about earmarks not being transparent? Cite?

From Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net)

Also, ask your lawmaker to disclose all of the earmark requests they are making. We are only able to track the successful requests, but there are tens of thousands of requests that are unknown. If a member of Congress is willing to sign on the dotted line asking for federal funding, the public should be able to know that.

from the article:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/07/why_earmarks_matter_1.html

[chipvogel]

I hope this issue gets a lot of attention. Our system is so messed up that you can get earmarks without even voting for them. We are living in the twilight zone. It begs the question of what is the sane thing to do in an insane system.

I think Paul has done the right thing on this issue. Paul chooses for himself not to take money from the federal government, but Paul still represents his district and wouldn't force them to become martyrs.

[Corydoras]

So this thing about earmarks being inadequately transparent is because only the successful ones become public? I fail to see why that isn't transparent enough...
:confused:

[partypooper]

Any other congressman could give exactly the same rationalization.

they couldn't because they vote for the bill and he votes against it.

[Korey Kaczynski]

So? The government takes our money away through taxes. Earmarking gives people some of their money back, else it's just going to go somewhere else. Ron might as well make it his district.

[ggibson1]

Ron Paul DOES compromise....

Compromise is what the adults do. That is what he will have to do to work with Congress.

Compromise is what he will have to do with the IRS and Social Security...

It will all have to be done as transitions so that people dont get crushed as the system moves


And that is one of the best parts about Ron Paul. Even though some of his ideas sound like the harshest ideas of the right... he does not want to make ideological attacks on these things. He is reasonable. He can be trusted to move in the correct direction, but not too fast.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Except the other congressmen do not vote against the bill.

Exactly. It's sad we assume, and can do so safely, that "we KNOW it's going to pass." Paul says "this is what my constituents want," but then votes against it on principle. If everyone else followed his lead, there wouldn't be any pork.

[mconder]

Ron Paul would NOT be serving his district if he did not use earmarks to bring money back to the district. That's his job.

The system is corrupt. Ron Paul is trying to change the system. He votes "NO" to the final bill, and would vote "NO" as President.


I don't see the moral crisis here. He has never voted for an earmark. That should be enough to satisfy anyone.

[jorlowitz]

So this thing about earmarks being inadequately transparent is because only the successful ones become public? I fail to see why that isn't transparent enough...

The issue is that they don't become 'transparent' until after they've already passed. That's not very transparent. Often earmarks get put into bills without anyone ever reading what they are. Furthermore, even after the earmarks have passed there is no easy way to track which members of congress submitted which earmarks. The issue is not that earmarks are SECRET but that they are not out in the open to research and discuss before their passage (or inclusion)

[rachmiel]

I don't think there's any moral failing here, either, but the bottom line is this quibble doesn't have enough "pith" or the "soundbite" quality to really gain any traction. Compare it to any of the other perceived failings of the other candidates and this is a speck of dust in the desert. So I'm not wasting much time worrying about it.

[BlutStein]

It was my understanding that earmarks don't increase spending, merely they suggest how a budget should get divided up once it gets passed. So say you have 100 billion dollars that is going to pass no matter what, an earmark says "hey spend 1 billion of that over here". Otherwise earmarks and pork would be the same exact thing if earmarks increased budgets.

Edit: Nevermind, guess pork and earmarks are the same. But either way, he votes against them and if he didn't put them in then he'd just be screwing his people over. If he didn't add them, they'd never see their tax dollars come back to them.

Sadly this is the best way to play within the system when its messed up to begin with. If this is the only thing they have on Ron Paul.....we have this thing made in the shade.

[Jagwarr]

I don't think there's any moral failing here, either, but the bottom line is this quibble doesn't have enough "pith" or the "soundbite" quality to really gain any traction. Compare it to any of the other perceived failings of the other candidates and this is a speck of dust in the desert. So I'm not wasting much time worrying about it.

I agree, with all the other issues if someone is going to allow something like this to decide their vote then they would not support Dr. Paul anyway, no matter what they tell you.

[Bossobass]

To quote Ron, "I'm trying to change the system. To turn it around to say that I'm supporting the system I find quite ironic and entertaining."

If every member of Congress did exactly what Ron does in Congress there would be no budget deficits, no inflation, no national debt, no undeclared, illegal war debt...PERIOD.

The rest of this ridiculous argument is a waste of virtual ink.

Bosso

[koob]

if you try to have perfect integrity you'd never even be able to graduate from high school. The truth is, you cant let yourself and your people suffer because of your integrity. You have to draw the line somewhere. It's like if you quit driving your car to help global warming. That's a ridiculous thing to do to yourself considering everyone else is still going to drive! With global warming we need some changes to be made up at higher levels--not by individuals. The same thing goes with this earmark spending business.

[daikonv]

Dr. Paul has to represent the people who voted him in as a Congressman. If they ask for money to fund certain projects, he can't say "no, because I personally don't believe in the extra spending." His job as a congressman is to represent the people. If they want the money, then he has to submit the earmark. However, he can exercise his personal philosophy when it comes down to voting for or against the earmark. He has never done anything hypocritical. That'd be the same as saying republicans who hate social security should not accept their social security checks.

[RedStripe]

Pork items and earmark spending makes up something like 1% or less of our annual budget. It's a non-issue compared to our spending overseas and domestic welfare costs.

[rachmiel]

if you try to have perfect integrity you'd never even be able to graduate from high school. The truth is, you cant let yourself and your people suffer because of your integrity. You have to draw the line somewhere. It's like if you quit driving your car to help global warming. That's a ridiculous thing to do to yourself considering everyone else is still going to drive! With global warming we need some changes to be made up at higher levels--not by individuals. The same thing goes with this earmark spending business.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines"... in this case, Russert was being petty-minded and hoping his pettiness would gain traction in the political discourse.

[golfboy]

it's a moot point. The people in his district paid so much for taxes, it's up to ron paul to make sure they get some of the money back.

Also, ron paul has voted against every budget, so it's not being hypocritical.

[Malakai0]

His job as a congressman is to get as much of the money sucked out of his district back to his district, in whatever manner his constituents want.

He is probably the best congressman in DC in that regard. He doesn't even judge what people come and ask for. He just does what they want. He is a statesman and true civil servant.


In an argument last night with my family they said I'm wrong for being against socialism but accepting Pell grants for college. Well, the IRS and SSA have taken much, much more money from me than I ever got back in Pell grants.
So why not get some of the money back for something important that's already been taken from me?

Seem's pretty bullet proof logic no? Same exact thing as well.

[CMoore]

The earmark issue is easy to understand for anyone with half a brain. Anybody who would decline to support Dr. Paul over that issue is someone who would probably not support him in any event. The real issues out there that draw people to him are so compelling that anyone inclined to support him is going to do so beause of those issues. They will not be deterred by the earmark issue. Spending time fretting over it is fruitless.

[AggieforPaul]

I dont blame him for doing it necessarily, but Im going to quit bragging about how he didnt accept federal aid to send his kids to college now that I know his stance on federal money is more nuanced than I'd previously realized.

[ValidusCustodiae]

The income tax that is robbing the people of Ron Paul's district is no more legal or constitutional than the earmarks.

He's getting the people of his district their money back. They deserve it. It's not inconsistent if you take it into context. The fact that those people are paying taxes to the federal government is key here. They deserve something for their money, Dr. Paul is working with a corrupt system (and is being fully forthright with everyone).

[Alan84]

RP does not create more spending by the earmarks as it takes away - which is a good thing to do - from the executive departments. The only thing that creates more spending is the yay votes his fellow congressman vote when the departments want more money, and RP is trying to shrink it. To say that RP is playing the same game as all others, is nonsense. You don't fault RP for what the other congressmen vote. If RP didn't put the earmarks in, you could also accuse him for not trying to shrink the size of government. Then add to the fact that this money is stolen from the district that he represents.

[Conza88]

Its pretty simple.

Lets say you are someone who is COMPLETELY against taking money from the government, just on principal. Then imagine the IRS comes to your house with some armed thugs to take your money from you. They take everything you have in cash on hand and leave. Are you going to ask for it back even though you are against taking money from the government? Of couser you will because it was your money in the first place.

This is exactly what Ron Paul is doing by putting earmarks in spending bills that he doesnt agree with. He figures that if they are going to steal your money from you in the first place, the least he can do is ask for it back.

OH HELL YES.

[Mark Rushmore]

Ron Paul DOES compromise....

Compromise is what the adults do. That is what he will have to do to work with Congress.

And imagine if he didn't. Imagine what a totally off-the-field extremist they'd paint him as if he refused to even do his duties as a representative to his district. If he refused to hear such requests from constituents or address their concerns via earmarks - they'd make a mockery of him as some kinda unrealistic, hopelessly naive guy whose obstinance gets in the way of him even performing his proper functions. We'd be hearing, "and how the hell is a quack like that going to manage the Presidency, will he veto everything that crosses his desk without even reading it on some trumped up principle?"

Yet he votes against them, and so his principles and record remain unsullied. This business with earmarks is just a smear attack, and when faced with questions like this I'd recommend simply repeating "He voted against the bill."

Give no ground to these attackers, fighting them from the high-ground of his voting record is much better than fighting amidst the bog of legislative process minutiae.

[NYgs23]

The point is, if Congress allocates 100 billion to a federal agency (let's say the US Armed Forces), the agency is going to spend that money on what the agency's directors deem necessary, not on what individual congressmen see fit, and certainly not on (for example) an advertising program promoting Texas shrimp or a Country and Western museum.

Why is he assuming that department bureaucrats would allocate it any better than the congressmen? Paul would get rid of a lot of those departments. If he voted against a spending bill it means he found the bill unconstitutional to begin with and earmarks/no-earmarks would be just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. For example, if he would vote against a bill sending $50 million to the Department of Agriculture, what does he care if Congressman Jones earmarks 100k for zucchini farmers in Florida or if the 100k is instead sent by Department Functionary Smith to the rutabaga farmers of Massachussetts. It's hacking at the branches of evil instead of at the root.

In any case, if the gub'mint wasn't bleeding everyone dry with taxes, maybe the Texas shrimp industry could have managed itself on its own. This is how Big Brother operates.

[Antonius Stone]

the best way to put down this BS is to find out how much RP's district paid in taxes those years.

If the amount they paid in taxes turns out to be a hugely disproportionate amount compared to the "pork" earmarks paul put in then the MSM will have no choice to shut up.

[literatim]

Earmarks are funded by spending levels. That means the money is already taxed and will be spent irregardless of earmarks. What earmarking does is appropriate the funds to projects for each district instead of letting federal bureaucrats have uninhibited access to the money. The money is the citizen's money, not the government's. It is a Congressman's duty to make sure the taxes already in the system are returned to the district that has been taxed.

[Goldwater Conservative]

In an argument last night with my family they said I'm wrong for being against socialism but accepting Pell grants for college. Well, the IRS and SSA have taken much, much more money from me than I ever got back in Pell grants.
So why not get some of the money back for something important that's already been taken from me?

Seem's pretty bullet proof logic no? Same exact thing as well.

Exactly. Hell, one of the worst things about socialism is that many people are left with no choice but to take out of the system that they were forced to pay into through taxes, and are consequently guilt-tripped into supporting that system. Disgusting, really.