Ron Paul and Earmarks
What the deal?
EDIT:
Thanks sempiternal and healthnut4freedom
sempiternal
"If $1000 Dollars Was Going to be Stolen From You by Government..
On March 10th, 2009 sempiternal says:
1) Wouldn't you vote to stop it?
2) If you lost the vote, wouldn't you then at least try to get some of your money back if there was a way?"
and healthnut4freedom;
"He's beating RP up for his earmarks. I don't think RP is explaining well why he puts earmarks in. He needed to emphasize the amount of the package would have been the same, regardless of whether he earmarked the money. The package would be $700 B, for example, and the money would go somewhere. So, he votes No on the $700B but it still gets voted in. Now $700B is going somewhere and he fights for some of it to go to his district. He is looking out for his people. I just wish he could have explained it better."
Ron Paul's Response:
"I think the people that are critical of that don't understand the process.
Because to vote against an earmark doesn't save any money. That's the first issue.
And the second issue is, the spending decision goes to the executive branch, which is wrong. All spending decisions should be by the Congress. So I argue the case that the Congress should make these decisions, since voting against the earmarks, you know, won't do any good.
Now, as far as making the request, you're absolutely right: I vote against them all, so I've never voted for an earmark. You know, because I vote against all of them.
But to make the request, it's sort of like of you coming and asking for your Social Security check. I don't like the system, and I want to change it, but I don't deny your access to your representative.
So I think there is so much [mis]understanding about this earmark. It saves no money whatsoever. It emphasizes that you want to give the power to the executive branch and take it away from the responsibility of the Congress.
Now, if it's wasteful, that's a different story, and most of 'em are, and that's why I vote against the bill. So you can't say I voted for an earmark.
But I think I'm responsible for representing the people. To me, it's like taxing a tax credit or a tax deduction. I want to get rid of the income tax, but I'm still gonna give you all the tax credits possible, in order to get as much money as possible. So, to me, it's in that category."
That's my President...
just one of the many reasons why Dr. Paul is my President.
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
Excellent article at C4L on
Excellent article at C4L on earmarks:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12867
.
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/user/BeaReady/
http://www.ohiofreedom.com/subd/
Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor
Definition of an Earmark
"Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent."
Ron Paul 2012 for Peace
I think every penny
I think every penny extracted from us should be earmarked. If it is not required for some specific item or project, we should not be taxed for it. Most misappropriated, misused money come from the big, non-specific general funds where no one seems to be accountable.
Pat
BOHICA!!
Pat
BOHICA!!
An earmark, is a way to show who a hog belongs to
Back in the free range days, folks would notch and clip the ears of hogs to show who owned them.
In money terms it means money that is to be spent for a particular purpose. So instead of a lump sum of money that they are going to send in anyway, that will be spent on all kinds of crap, when it is earmarked that means it has to be spent on something in particular.
They are going to spend the money anyway, how is having a portion of it "earmarked" to be spent on something actually useful to the folks in his district bad? Instead of umpteen bazillion dollars being funneled between everyone from the governor down to the dog catcher, some of the peoples money will actually be ether returned in services or improvements to their area in a above board verifiable manner. How is this wrong again?
Oh, because John McCain said earmarks are bad, and it is the popular thing now to be against earmarks, oh okay I see.
Yes, it is much better to have all that money wasted in bureaucracy than to have some of it actually return back to the folks that it was stolen from.
The government works off of a stupid budgetary system if they don't spend it this year they don't get it next year, so all the little individual fiefdoms in a state all max out their budgets each year on stupid stuff, would you rather it be spent just because they need to spend it, or to be spent on something somewhat tangible. This is what an earmark does.
It shows who "owns" the funds, so when it is earmarked in Ron Paul's district it stands a much better chance of being spent on something a little bit useful rather than pissed away just because someone wants to get the same amount next year.
Of course in the grand scheme of things this is a screwed up system, but since it is what we have he uses it to the advantage of his constituents.
Thank you Dr. Paul for making me act on what I already knew was right.
*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*
But that still leaves the question,
why does he vote against them? He puts in an earmark then votes against it. If he agrees with what you're saying then he should be voting for them instead of against them.
If $1000 Dollars Was Going to be Stolen From You by Government..
1) Wouldn't you vote to stop it?
2) If you lost the vote, wouldn't you then at least try to get some of your money back if there was a way?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
The money has already been stolen.
It's already taken and allocated to be spent. He's not voting against that but against the earmark. He's voting against HOW it's going to be spent, when he's the one that put the earmark in to have it spent in that way. This is inconsistent.
No, it's the other way around.
Ron Paul always votes against pork. But if it passes, he usually specifies how some money will be spent.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
I think you have it backwards.
He puts in the earmark FIRST, then he votes against it.
reminds me
reminds me of when govt talks about budget cuts, and they're not. Process.
Is it possible for Ron to Vote Against a bill first, and then say but oh hey if it passes, can we write something in to recover some of our money you guys stole? Is that Possible?
Exactly.
He specifies how some of the money will be spent if it passes, however, if the bill is unconstitutional, he always votes against it.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ok it makes more sense
when you say it that way.
He's not voting against the earmark, but voting against the bill.
Thanks for explaining this.
I think this is a huge mistake by Ron
His reasoning for doing it makes sense to some degree, but this could really come back to burn him in a potential Presidential race or some other debate. If other Congressmen like McCain can stop earmarks altogether, so can Ron, and choosing not to do so will not be acceptable.
http://federalfallacy.com
http://federalfallacy.com
Earmarks are Less Than 2% of Spending. Isn't 98% More Important?
A politician that wants to eliminate earmarks is a politician that wants to put a bandaid on the ear of a pig, eliminating accountability for the pig, and then keep the pig!
That's like letting a problem run wild, rather than trying to control it or stop it.
A real representative wants to eliminate the pig entirely. But if he can't eliminate the pig, he's going to put some accountability on it rather than letting it run free.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
I agree with everything you
I agree with everything you said, but it just comes off as hypocritical to people who are less informed and who aren't interested in hearing the reasoning behind it. Seems to me it would be just as easy to say no to earmarks altogether. Credibility is blown in a way when you preach the ideas of being fiscally conservative.
http://federalfallacy.com
http://federalfallacy.com
I Would Rather He Continue His Consistent Fight...
And instead, figure out a quick and simple way to explain the fight, that most people will understand.
Ron Paul does this well with other issues, like war for example, simply by saying, how would you feel if there was a Chinese military base in your town,
I think using the pig analogy would work.
Or it could also be done with a tax analogy;
An earmark is like a tax deduction. When the government decides to take money from the people, an earmark is a way to keep some of it for a specific purpose.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Someone's dumping gold
Basically, he says you shouldn't be stealing gold and dumping it in the ocean, but if you're going to do it, I'm going to stick my shotglass out and get some back that was stolen before it's all lost in the ocean. That's my understanding of it simplified.
I've seen this all over the internet and I don't understand why people across the country zoom in on Ron on this, and not Their Own Representatives. I mean, I read a guy in Michigan or something railing on what a hypocrite Ron is and it's like... no he's not, but if so hopefully the Lake Jackson people vote him out, and what did Your rep do? Voted For it eh? He was a bitter Mcainiac.
take it back
1) Ron Paul votes against the deficit spending bills.
2) Ron Paul appropriates money to his district to attempt to return some of the confiscated tax money back to the people of his district.
1) shows intellectual ability and understanding of the big issues
2) shows pragmatism and desire to return money that has been confiscated
http://FlipFlopRomney.blogspot.com
Seems like he wants it both ways.
He puts in the earmark to try to get the money to his district, then he votes against it to try to keep it out of his district. Which does he want?
It's the same contradiction
It's the same contradiction posed in the person who would rail against the government, yet continue to serve in it. One look at the paycheck tells all.
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
But he doesnt rail against the existence of the government.
He just thinks it should be minimal.
But then his employment in
But then his employment in that government adds to it's size, doesn't it? Wouldn't you think Ron would be more effective working OUTSIDE of the government in an effort to downsize it? Trust me, he has few friends IN government, yet he has thousands and thousands of followers outside. What makes more sense?
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
Nope.
His "employment" as an elected official as mandated by the charter of that government does not add to it's size--it's part of the delegated size in the first place. it's the movement of size expansion beyond that charter that's the problem.
IOW, you're mistaking a legitimate part of the government for an illegitimate part, and that's where your logic fails.
This has been gone over so many times here.
RP votes against appropriations bills with earmarks.
However, IF they pass, which they always do, he is going to return some of the money of the people in his district to them, in "non-pork" form, as part of his duty of being their representative.
He's not going to punish his constituents, when the system is operating in the way it operates.
That doesn't answer the question.
If he wants the money to go to his district then why vote against it?
Because he FIRST wants the money to stay in the pocket
of the person that earned it. He knows it is a wasted vote, but it is the Constitutional vote, and that is where he gets his marching orders. Once his fellow Congresscritters have tossed the Constitution out (again) he does what he can for the people in his district.
There is not perfect answer, he does pretty good with a crappy set of circumstances.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
If the Constitutional thing to do is to vote against it
then it seems not putting the earmark in in the first place would be the constitutional thing too.
You've been here 1 hour and 13 minutes
enough said