Help Please
I was talking with someone on another forum. I explained how earmarks work and then he hit me with this. Can I get some help and suggestions from you guys.
"I would agree with that statement but, [b]Do you know what an Omnibus bill is?[/b] It is not a set amount, that would be spent anyways. [url=http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/omnibus.htm]An OMNIBUS BILL packages together several measures into one or combines diverse subjects into a single bill. Examples are reconciliation bills, combined appropriations bills, and private relief and claims bills[/url].
This particular omnibus was an Appropriations bill, they just throw a lot of things to spend money on into it and try to pass it. Dr. Paul added his pet projects to the bill, and hence cost tax payers an extra $97 million. So just in case you are gov't educated, if he took away his $97 million, then it would have cost us $97million less. An Omnibus Bill is not a fixed budget bill, and in this case, it is more like a Frankenstein'd appropriations bill.
So in summary, Mr. Fiscal Responsibility himself, added $97 million dollars to the deficit, all by himself. If this doesn't make him a hypocrite then what does? All I want you to see is that he is just another sleazeball politician, just like the rest of them. Talking fiscal responsibility out of one ear, then adding to the deficit out of the other."
Think he's blowing smoke
I think he's just going along with the standard bs. I don't think he has anything. I am waiting for his next response.
It would be good to know which bill he is talking about
since "omnibus" only refers to the way the bills are packaged, not what is in them. Adding earmarks to an omnibus bill would be no different than adding them to any other spending bill, except that instead of passing numerous little bills with lots of individual votes, Congress is opting to pass them all with a single vote.
That being said, which bill is he refering to? Without a reference there is no way to dispute or confirm his claim.
Either the congress decides how it's spent or the president does
and The Constitution says it's the job of Congress. That's the bottom line.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill
Hope this helps:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html
"But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
(…)
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. …
I don’t think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they’re going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I’m their representative."
Dr. Paul
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
That's not his argument
His argument is that the Omnibus bills are different and that the budget is not a set amount. It's his argument that in the case of Omnibus bills only the earmarks actually add to the total cost of the bill. This is what I am trying to find evidence that he is wrong. I need a reference stating that earmarks on omnibus bills do not increase the amount of spending. You can see his response below.
He's wrong.
Here's a link to an article in a real publication, which will explain it to him again.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/800/...
Your forum buddy is hanging his hat on a much-propagated lie, which he wants to use as an attack for his own purposes.
He doesn't understand what the definition of "earmarks" is.
Certainly, there may be pork barrel spending put into earmarks, but it doesn't reduce the amount of the appropriations to remove them. It just puts the spending into someone else's hands in the gov't.
The earmarks allow Congressmen to micro-manage some of that spending, but the money is going to be spent somewhere.
It does not reduce spending, to eliminate earmarks.
Sure, I'll grant him the leeway that most other people are ignorant on the subject as well. But that doesn't make him right. He's still wrong.
What he needs to focus on is reducing discretionary spending funds, which is what the earmarks are in. Not the earmarks, because they are just dedicated targets for allocating the discretionary funds.
And here's another one from Fact Check
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according...
But contrary to popular belief -- this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by -- cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending, according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that "earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies." That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting. So while earmarks may drive up the cost of government slightly (by, for example, awarding no-bid contracts in a legislator's home district), cutting earmarks alone is "not sufficient for cutting wasteful spending," Patch said. The Brookings Institution's Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project, agrees, saying that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down."
Not sure which bill. Did he
Not sure which bill. Did he vote yes or no on it?
If his constituents were not recipients of the monies in the omnibus portion of the bill. and if they paid 97 million or more in Federal taxes.then he was merely including their Federal taxes, and getting their money back.
That's my simple minded argument
"I don't endorse anything they say"
~Ron Paul On the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
He's using a Fox News clip
He's using the clip where Cavuto is trying to hammer him. Here is is latest response. "Earmarking is just the act of designating funds to a specific use. The argument for "earmarking promotes transparency" only works if there is a set budget, because if you earmark onto a budget, then all it does is specify where the dollar amount is going.
The omnibus was not a budget, hence if it is not a budget, then there is no set amount of spending. So if there is no set amount of spending, all earmarking does is add to the cost of the bill. So by earmarking onto a bill that is not a budget, hence no funds were already allocated for this bill, then all you are doing is increasing the cost of the bill.
In the Omnibus, which was more specifically an appropriations bill, there were almost 8,000 earmarks that accounted for $5.5 billion in additional spending. So just for the sake of these earmarks/pet projects, the treasury allocated an additional $5.5 billion to this bill. This may have only made up 1 percent of the bill, but $5.5 billion isn't chump change, well unless you are Obama or Pelosi.
Just another tidbit. In the omnibus, Ron Paul, Mr. Fiscal Responsibility himself, sponsored more earmarks than Nancy Pelosi."
I would ask for a reference.
By definition, an earmark is "an addition to legislation that designates the use of already allocated funds." I read several articles criticizing the presence of earmarks specifically in a recent omnibus spending bill. The authors all emphasized the frivolous nature of the earmark designated uses: lobster projects, building school sidewalks, tattoo removal programs and such. There was also much discussion of the fact that without the earmarks, much of the same money would go to local governments to spend as they see fit (which indirectly implies the spending of the funds would still be included in the bill). Some even went as far as to say that the earmarked funds were costing taxpayers whatever amount was associated with them. But all of these critical writers seemed very careful to avoid mentioning that the absence of the earmarks would not change the overall spending in the bill (specifically an omnibus spending bill). They didn't comment on that question one way or the other. Of course they seemed to imply that earmarks increase spending, which by definition they should not. If there is an exception to this for "omnibus spending," they also didn't mention that fact.
I couldn't find anything else. My guess is that the earmarks in omnibus spending bills are like other earmarks, but I couldn't determine that for certain. Perhaps the person you are discussing this with is reasonable enough to supply his verification of the exceptional use of the term earmarks. (But remember, if he's just making stuff up, then there's no reason to expect him to be reasonable.)
Dear Bub,
The definition of "earmark" is a "designated use of funds that have already been allocated." If the term is used differently in regard to omnibus spending bills, I couldn't find any evidence of the exception. Can you tell me where you found out that the term was used in a nonstandard way when it comes to omnibus spending bills?
Yours truly,
Carp
His Response
"Earmarking is just the act of designating funds to a specific use. The argument for "earmarking promotes transparency" only works if there is a set budget, because if you earmark onto a budget, then all it does is specify where the dollar amount is going.
The omnibus was not a budget, hence if it is not a budget, then there is no set amount of spending. So if there is no set amount of spending, all earmarking does is add to the cost of the bill. So by earmarking onto a bill that is not a budget, hence no funds were already allocated for this bill, then all you are doing is increasing the cost of the bill.
In the Omnibus, which was more specifically an appropriations bill, there were almost 8,000 earmarks that accounted for $5.5 billion in additional spending. So just for the sake of these earmarks/pet projects, the treasury allocated an additional $5.5 billion to this bill. This may have only made up 1 percent of the bill, but $5.5 billion isn't chump change, well unless you are Obama or Pelosi.
Just another tidbit. In the omnibus, Ron Paul, Mr. Fiscal Responsibility himself, sponsored more earmarks than Nancy Pelosi."
Thanks
I'm gonna try that and see how it goes. I'll keep you posted.
Big T said it all below,
But I think of it as Ron Paul's Robin Hood moment: The out of control government steals from the people through taxes, and Ron Paul steals some back for his district, through earmarks.
Any funds
in an OSB which are not earmarked, are going to be spent anyway.
Nothing is "saved" by not earmarking.
Ron Paul has said time and again that as long as the OSB spending is operated with earmarking methodology, he will use earmarks to bring funding to his district.
He doesn't support the earmarking, but if it is going to be the way things are done, he's not going to penalize his district by not using them, because that money is going to get spent by somebody else if he doesn't.
It's NOT going to save any money by not earmarking. The money is appropriated in the OSB bill, and if he doesn't use it, some other bureaucrat will.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_%28politics%29
In United States politics an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks do not create new government spending, but allocate existing spending for specific purposes. The term "earmark" is used in this sense only in the United States, and it is not recognized as a noun by major dictionaries (such as the OED and Merriam-Webster).
Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district. Earmarks have often been taken as being "pork barrel" legislation, although the two are not the same.
His argument
His argument is that it's not a normal earmarking process. He is saying that the omnibus bills are different. That they are not appropriated as normal bills are and that the earmarks in the case of omnibus bills only do in fact add to the cost of the bill. Do you know any specifics on the omnibus bill aspect?
Exactly
What he said.
And you can bet that Dr. Paul voted against the bill.
Dr. Paul doesn't like earmarks, but it is the system we have.
He doesn't like income taxes either, but I'm sure that hey pays them.
Specifics on Omnibus
His premise is that omnibus bills are different. Do you know if they are? If they are not is there somewhere I can go to prove that they are not to him?
I second your comment BigT.
@Carpe diem - The way you drafted your post it seems as though you are the one calling RP triple ninja an 's-ball'. I can't even bare myself to say the 's' word about RP triple von issle.
_____________________________________________
Have you researched Dr. Robert Beck yet? Figure it out.
Google Video - search: "suppressed medical discovery"
_____________________________________________
Watch this dry yet astonishing Dr. Robert Beck cancer treatment lecture on Google Video - search "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3383948315844437935
Yes
Michael is right. I would never say such things. I just reposted his response to me. HIs whole thing is that omnibus bills are different and that the earmarks actually add on to the spending totals of these bills. I understand the premise of the earmarks and why Dr Paul does what he does. What I do not have is a thorough understanding of omnibus bills to defend it in this instance.
He was just quoting someone
He was just quoting someone else, on another forum. I don't think they're his words.