0 votes

Ron Paul and earmarks

I was wondering why Ron Paul didn't swear off of earmarks for 2009. Glenn Beck was running all the members of Congress that swore off of earmarks for 2009 and he wasn't on it. Kind of disappointing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As soon as you swear off

As soon as you swear off your income tax refund

Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

He didn't because

he believes, as is true, that issues of budgeting/funds allocation belongs to the CONGRESS, of which he is a member. Earmarks are one way that the Congress is able to allocate funds. If Congress gave up its right to allocate funds and earmarks that would not stop the money from being spent. Earmarks only DIRECT the spending. If they give up earmarks, then the President/executive branch and bureaucrats get to allocate the funds/decide what to spend the money on.

As we have seen, neither the Republican or new Democrat administrations do a very good job of cutting spending, and they do an even worse job of choosing what to spend money on (like war and welfare).

It's better to have the power of the budget divided amongst many members of Congress, than rest in the hands of one individual (the President).

Additionally, I believe Ron Paul generally votes against the bills with excessive spending such as earmarks... even the ones he earmarks. However, if I recall correctly, he sees earmarks as a way of getting some of the taxpayers' money back in his district/for the people he represents. So, I think he actually will request an earmark on behalf of one of his constituents if they ask for it... but I'm not sure if he always then votes for that or not.

photoshopwiz's picture

Ron Paul Earmarks...No Pork Here

Ron Paul Earmarks...No Pork Here

Ron Paul is 100% for transparency in bills, including earmarks; 100% against self-serving earmarks; 100% for Congress "reading" bills in their entirety. The fact that he also has earmarks attached to his name should be accepted only after noting that his earmarks for his district divert already appropriated $$ from horrendous channels and point them in positive directions. Also, local governance and maintenance of infrastructures locally will only come about after major changes are made in the entire system and that is going to take some time.


He mentions this in

The Revolution. He basically said that the money is already in the budget, so he will earmark for his constitutents, because it is going to be spent anyway, and will vote no anyway...At least that's how I understood it.