In a recent news story, Ron Paul was called a hypocrite for including earmarks in the omnibus spending bill. His defense was that while he indeed voted against the bill, earmarks were not added spending, but simply direction for where approved dollars would go. He further argued that every dollar of a budget should be earmarked. Otherwise, the congress would be giving up its constitutional responsibility to the Executive branch. So, for the record, what is an earmark? If what Paul said is true, I would have to agree with him.
It's a line item in a bill that directs Federal money to a particular project. I don't. The earmark process is how Congressmen "bring home the bacon" for their district. It creates a system where Congressmen aren't worried about the country as a whole, but rather how many goodies they can get for their constituents.
To second this, I would repeat that it bypasses things like competitive bidding processes or merit based analysis and awarding of funds. It severely reduces the efficiency of how funds are distributed.
And I can give the OP examples. Say you are NASA, and when you get your congressionally approved budget, you find that there is a mandatory segment where you fund some sort of student program at a local community college near one of your NASA centers. So as an agency, you see budget $X, but some % is already allocated to programs you may have no interest in. Some agencies get hosed more than others, and NASA has been notoriously hosed in recent years (according to them at least.)
it's basically bribery to get congressional members to support something. "Will you vote for this?" "I don't know, what's in it for me and my constituents?" "Nothing, and everything, it's for America" "Well, tell ya what, if you put $X in there for my hometown crap not at all related to your cause, stuff that I could never get anyone to vote for by itself or on its own merit , I'm more likely to see things your way and give you a vote."
video in question <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j87cegKYSI4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j87cegKYSI4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
This is why the government is terribly inefficient at handling issues domestically. This is one of the reasons why Im against big government. You have obama who is against earmarks and blames all the current earmarks on the previous administration, ignoring the fact that it was the democratic congress, which he was apart of, who put the huge spending bill in effect. Then he turns around and says his current democratic congress (again, which was the same congress previous to his administration) will monitor all earmarks and make sure they are used correctly. This is exactly why there is a problem. Earmarks are a necessity. No, they don't need to be used as often as they are now. But you will continue to have useless, ineffective, and/or corrupt spending if we keep electing people to office who will not take responsibility for their actions. I used to think obamas extreme left approach was going to be his downfall, but its coming more clear his lack of experience in Washington politics will send him crashing faster than anything else.
Political jargon.. People elect an official because he promises the moon to his future constituents then when he has enough pull and tries to push some agenda of his he brings home the cheese.. As Weslinder says "It creates a system where Congressmen aren't worried about the country as a whole, but rather how many goodies they can get for their constituents" Which makes me wonder how they hell they will get re-elected if they don't promise what they proposed? It's a catch 22..
If I can defend earmarks and Ron Paul for a moment. In a republican democracy shouldn't a representative look to help out his constituents by directing spending in ways that are beneficial to their districts?
^^^I think we'd be a lot better off if a lot of Congress wasn't re-elected. Still, that's why the whole system should change. As it is, if a Congressman isn't playing the game, his district is likely getting shorted. At times, there have been Congressional rules that said bills could only cover one subject at a time. So you couldn't have a Pentagon funding bill and add an amendment to build new toilets at Yellowstone. I think it would be wise to revive that rule.
What's the difference between Congressional pork and Executive croniism? I would prefer more publicity of the current earmark system than to just hand over the entire budget to the Executive and hope for the best. I personally think Paul's reasoning in this matter is sound.
I disagree. It defeats the intended purpose of the bill in the first place. If I allocate 50 billion dollars for TXDoT (presumably to aid in transportation within the great state of Texas), but Ron Paul earmarks 25 billion of that to fund the "Ron Paul Texas Road Museum" in his home district, that's undermining the funding intended to be used by TXDoT, funding which otherwise have more direct benefit to the entire state. Sure, Ron Paul could earmark it for good ideas, like say, high-speed rail from Houston to Dallas and San Antonio. But even in that case, he is removing the authority from TXDoT, a group with a far better handle on what is and is not prudent for Texas transportation. of course, in reality, earmarks are never used for much anything but pork-esque funding in congressional home districts. EDIT: I see B-Bob already pointed this out.
Ron Paul got played like a fool in that interview in three ways. First, he says everything should be earmarked, and then he says the stimulus bill is a waste, and then to top it off, he has the most spending (ERed) in the stimulus bill. He should have addressed it in two separate arguments instead of letting them throw it all in the same argument. Yes, of course a representative should be looking out for his own districts at all costs. Its debatable to say what RP did was wrong or not. RP recognized the "stimulus bill" for what it really was ... a spending bill. RP would be a fool not to reach into the pot and grab all that he can. What he doesn't grab will be used somewhere else, and probably a whole lot more inefficiently. If this was a true stimulus bill, then he had no right to take all that he could. If the power remains in the state, then its up to the state to determine its fate. Why should states like CA and NY continue to grow and "prosper", but yet continue to run in the red, while poor states operate in the green but can't grow because they are not getting the free handouts? You have TX, who is barely in the green, but yet is receiving tons of infrastructure funds (from RP) from the fed gov. That should be coming from the state. What RP is doing is not right, but I can't blame him. Its a by-product of big government mentality.
Congress doesn't hand the entire budget over to the Executive. Each department comes up with a budget, hopefully well-defended, and if a congressman chooses to represent taxpayers over bureaucrats, he tries to cut it down. Then that whole amount goes to the bureaucracy, and they try their dead-level best to do what they are supposed to do with the budget they are given.
To be fair to Ron Paul, Ike hit his district pretty hard. Odds are that his district could better use the money this year than most other districts and most other years. The system still stinks.
Agreed, the system is what stinks. Anyone who doesn't bring home the bacon is losing out to those who do/would under this system. I think it's just strange that so much "pork" or "earmark" spending is allowed to be introduced via legislation/budgets/whatever that have NOTHING to do with the additional money that's being spent or legislation being passed. Somehow things should be kept separate, and more pure, regarding legislation and budgets that get passed. Obtaining/promising federal funds for secondary/unrelated projects shouldn't be a method of political parties gaining votes and allies.
Ron Paul has had a big change of heart, the search function is off but I started a thread on this right after Ike when he voted against recovery for Ike. Now, to be fair, I really didn't understand what this spending package was, or if he was voting against the overall budget.
In a system built for "eery man, child, woman, plant, and legal entity for itself" it's not easy to find compromise. There won't ever be a solution that everyone's happy with, but at least there's flexibility.
