Earmark response....wow!

earmarks are only done after the money has already been "spent" The budget sends money to committees and then the committees break up the money by using earmarks. Earmarks actually bring accountability to the spending by forcing congressman to sign their names beside the money that is being spent. Earmarks are only an accounting ledger on money that has already been allocated. Not using earmarks has no effect on money being spent or on the budget in any way.

I wish we had more earmarks... then we would see where all the money goes.

Have you researched which branch of government has the Constitutional authority for deciding how money is spent?

Posted by Lew Rockwell at March 11, 2009 11:43 AM

Obama denounces earmarks. He wants all spending decisions made by himself and not, as constitutionally required and practiced in the early republic, by congress. Is the 99% of spending that is decided by the president to be subjected to the same restrictions? Of course not.

Remember, earmarks do not constitute new spending, but rather allocation of present spending. Attacking them is a trick by neocons and other advocates of dictatorship to seem anti-spending, when they only want all decisions made by the president. This is an attempt to further weaken congress, constitutionally the senior branch of government, which already has about as much power as the Roman senate in the days of Caligula.

Ron Paul is right: the entire federal budget should be earmarked, with no spending decisions made by the dictator, who should be reduced to a minor magistrate.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025785.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

extorted money back from the crooks, I wouldn't vote for him. At least he is fighting to get back the money taken from them. Without earmarks, the Gov't can choose to spend it on whatever program they see fit. With earmarks, the money is accounted for and appropriated. All Gov't spending should be earmarked so that it can be accounted for.

....is requested by his constituents to ask for the money, he has to do it. That IS his job. But, then, he follows his principles and votes against the entire bill, because he does not believe in deficit spending. The reason he thinks earmarks are better than having the President spend tax money, is because earmarks are requested by the citizens, who presumably know better than the Federal government where money should be spent. If they don't do earmarks, then the President and Congress decide where money is spent. Usually that means the money will go overseas and to the military. Yes, it is difficult to understand Dr. Paul's positions sometimes. That is because he puts a great deal of thought into his personal philosophy, and does not just think what he is told to think. We too, must think for ourselves.

Why do you think the executive branch should decide on where your money is spent? All money appropriated should be earmarked...ALL OF IT! It places accountability where it belongs, in the public eye. There should be no discretion that wasn't placed in front of appropriations process and behind the scenes power broking with public funds should be curtailed completely.

**“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” ~ Mark Twain **

8 weeks eh? It shows. Your example makes no sense. It would make more sense if you said that an armored car full of YOUR MONEY was driving down the road.

God forbid someone that represents the people gets to spend their money, rather than it going into the black hole of executive branch projects, with no single person held accountable for the waste. Money from earmarks would be lining the pockets of private contractors if state representatives didn't jump on them.

The alternative to Dr. Paul's method is insanity.

The crucial point Dr. Paul makes is where the money goes if you don't take it. It goes to one man, the President, to decide autonomously where it goes. From what I understand, the money is already allocated to be spent. So because it's not the government's money, Dr. Paul is trying to get that money back to the people making sure that a portion of it goes to his constitutents. His constituents may not get their money back if the President decides where the money goes.

-------
The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve a fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul

Goldspan is not a troll. He's an anti-federalist and Austrian in the strictest form of the word. We happen to disagree on the earmark question.

If I had to bet, I'd say it saddens Dr. Paul that he has to earmark money back to his district, money that shouldn't even travel through DC in the first place.

But, it is what it is. I've agreed with the Dr. Paul's stance on this issue after first hearing his explanation to Russert. Makes sense to me.

I think you made a boo boo.
Read his response again. Or read more of the responses you're bound to get here. Reading, and comprehending are two different things.

Trust me, it took me a while to "get it" as well. And had it been just a few months ago, I might have even agreed with you.

But it makes sense.
Earmarks equal accountability.
The ACT of Earmarking, then voting no, is a way to get your constituent's money back to them, and maintain principles at the same time. It's a bit of a game that he HAS to play. Otherwise Paul's constituents end up sending their money out of town.

You're forgiven..Unless you did this on purpose, and are just playing.

The government has brainwashed the public for generations (“earmarking means wasting”). Paul said that Congress needs to quit being lazy and useless by letting tax money by unnoticed. Either you understand that by now or you never will. …Or perhaps you are merely posting this to try to confuse people.

—Cliff in Sioux City, Iowa
April’s Song: “So This Is Love” by George Benson
Throw-away tools of war

...but you all hit this nail on the head. The poster has a skewed view of the earmark process.

You don't get it.

Ron Paul always votes against the appropriations. However, once congress appropriates the billions of dollars to spend, if congress doesn't earmark it, that money goes to the executive and is spent in secret. It probably goes overseas to some other country...

One way or the other, the money that gets appropriated gets spent back at home only if congress earmarks it, so we might as well have congress earmark it and return the money to the American taxpayers.

However, the bigger issue are the appropriations... Which Dr. Paul ALWAYS votes against. There's way too much money being spent by both our congress and executive and Ron Paul knows this.

You have to understand how our government spends money and then you'll see the bigger picture.