Houston Chronicle "Earmark" Article

[inibo]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4935311.html

Anyone seen it? If there is already a thread on this then delete it. I'd run across it eventually anyway.

Anyway this one could actually be a challenge to address, at least for me.

Personally, I think their presentation of Dr. Paul's "defense" is fair; for some folks it might speak for itself, even if it does kind of show him playing bare knuckles politics.

Anyway, suppose a rational progressive-leaning person were to ask you to address the issue?

[Kuldebar]

That's an old story...here's a related link with some additional info:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

[kylejack]

Defense 1: The district sends a lot of money to the federal government, so it is good to try and get it back.

Defense 2: He requests the earmarks, but then he votes against the bills.

Defense 3: A certain dollar amount is set aside for these projects already. Requesting an earmark is just claiming a part of that for projects in the district. The same money will be spent regardless.


Defense 1 is pretty insufficient for me. Money should not be spent on these things, and requesting that money be spent on them is wrong. Defense 2 also does not resonate with me. If making the request increases spending, it simply shouldn't be done. Defense 3 is probably the most effective and rational defense, but I'm not sure if its true. I've seen it in a few places, but I haven't seen anything confirming this.

I was particularly disappointed to see Ron Paul requesting an earmark for the Mexico to Canada superhighway, something which he often speaks out against.

[Kuldebar]

It's really a non issue, submitting earmarks doesn't equal spending.


Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district," Mr. Lizardo said.

However, Mr. Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor. So far this year he has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans and state-foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One (Ron Paul)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html


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.

[angelatc]

Defense #4 is that he is elected to represent the people that vote for him. When those people walk into his office and ask him to request funds for their project, he has an obligation to them to do so.


And while he did request funds for a highway, they told me here that it isn't the Mexico-to Canada superhighway. It is apparently a highway nowhere near that.

[Silverback]

It's his job to represent the people in his district and submit their projects, whatever he thinks of the process or even the projects themselves.

It's his duty to then vote against the bills if he thinks they're bad.

He does both.

D.C. isn't an easy place to spend a couple decades and still have your honor intact, the good doctor has pulled it off.

[kylejack]

Defense #4 is that he is elected to represent the people that vote for him. When those people walk into his office and ask him to request funds for their project, he has an obligation to them to do so.
I disagree. He should act out his principles, and if they don't like that, they vote him out.



And while he did request funds for a highway, they told me here that it isn't the Mexico-to Canada superhighway. It is apparently a highway nowhere near that.
"The routing of I-69 in Texas is being studied as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) concept as the "I-69/TTC" component. Portions of the route may coincide with the "TTC-35" corridor component as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69#Texas

[angelatc]

I disagree. He should act out his principles, and if they don't like that, they vote him out.

I think he is acting out his principles.




"The routing of I-69 in Texas is being studied as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) concept as the "I-69/TTC" component. Portions of the route may coincide with the "TTC-35" corridor component as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69#Texas


Well, I would think that 13 million is probably only a repair. It doesn't seem like it's enough for an extension.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=5967 - original thread.

[bygone]

And this is one of those "pick your battles" deals. If you can't stop it from being funded in the first place, you had might as well fight for your slice of the pie.