LeopardPM
12-27-2007, 02:46 AM
Could someone please explain to me the difference between the two? I see articles equating them and I think they are being deceitful but I am not knowledgeable about the process. Here is an email I sent to a journalist who recently wrote an article which equated these two terms.
"Dear Mr Journalist,
The recent hub-bub about 'earmarks' and Ron Paul is a bit confusing and I am hoping you might explain to me (and maybe others in a column) what the definition of an earmark is and how it works, and what the definition of pork is and how it comes into being. I am unsure, but as I understand it:
Pork: additional legislation added to a main bill which INCREASES its total taxpayer cost. These are used to garner votes for the bill's passage through congress (ie: "Vote for this bill and we will put in that $100 million additional highway spending in your state/district/etc")
Earmark: is legislation which directs the spending of a bill ALREADY PASSED towards certain specific areas. For instance, congress passes a $100 million dollar spending increase for highways, congressperson installs an earmark to make sure that $25 million go directly to their district.
I am unclear to the actual definition and usage, but it does seem very clear that Pork is NOT the same as an earmark. From what I gathered from Ron Paul's interview on Meet the Press, he was trying to explain this but failed to do so in the limited amount of time alloted. I think there is nothing wrong with forcing money that has ALREADY been approved for spending towards directions in one's own district - it IS a sort of 'tax rebate' as Paul alluded to. Would you be so kind as to research this distinction and report back to us, your concerned readers, your findings... also please include whether or not you still believe that Ron Paul is being disingenuous and exactly why... Thank You!
a citizen who would like to be more educated,
J citizen"
Do any of you know the answer? This seems rather important because it WILL be a topic this campaign season.
"Dear Mr Journalist,
The recent hub-bub about 'earmarks' and Ron Paul is a bit confusing and I am hoping you might explain to me (and maybe others in a column) what the definition of an earmark is and how it works, and what the definition of pork is and how it comes into being. I am unsure, but as I understand it:
Pork: additional legislation added to a main bill which INCREASES its total taxpayer cost. These are used to garner votes for the bill's passage through congress (ie: "Vote for this bill and we will put in that $100 million additional highway spending in your state/district/etc")
Earmark: is legislation which directs the spending of a bill ALREADY PASSED towards certain specific areas. For instance, congress passes a $100 million dollar spending increase for highways, congressperson installs an earmark to make sure that $25 million go directly to their district.
I am unclear to the actual definition and usage, but it does seem very clear that Pork is NOT the same as an earmark. From what I gathered from Ron Paul's interview on Meet the Press, he was trying to explain this but failed to do so in the limited amount of time alloted. I think there is nothing wrong with forcing money that has ALREADY been approved for spending towards directions in one's own district - it IS a sort of 'tax rebate' as Paul alluded to. Would you be so kind as to research this distinction and report back to us, your concerned readers, your findings... also please include whether or not you still believe that Ron Paul is being disingenuous and exactly why... Thank You!
a citizen who would like to be more educated,
J citizen"
Do any of you know the answer? This seems rather important because it WILL be a topic this campaign season.