And I thought of Dubya and BCFRA when I read this article about Ron Paul ("Paul Defends Asking for Special Projects") tonight. The article read:
"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul on Sunday defended his efforts in Congress to bring home money to his Texas district, despite his long-held aversion to big government and congressional votes to reign in federal spending.(emphasis added) Paul's example is a little different (though I bet if you got Paul on a roll he would flat-out claim that earmarks are unConstitutional some way or another), but it still concerns me that he (Paul) would attempt to rationalize these actions.
'I've never voted for an earmark in my life,' the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's 'Meet the Press' about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.
'I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back,' said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. 'I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people.'
The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House."
2 comments:
This earmarks issue gets my ire up. One of my friends the other day even insinuated that earmarks were like pork, and that the president is right to complain about them.
Earmarks do not change the amount of spending in a bill. Earmarks direct the money in the bill to be spent in specific ways. Without earmarks, it is the executive's discretion that determines how money is spent. Of course the president will complain about earmarks - right after he signs the spending into law - because they limit the presidents discreation.
Earmarks do not increase the size of a bill. Earmarks do not cause more spending. Earmarks limit the wrath of an executive who can cut out spending in the districts of the congressman he doesn't like. Paul is right to include earmarks. Paul is right to vote against the spending bills.
You've got to be kidding me . . . "do not cause more spending," do not increase the size of a bill"? Earmarks are appropriations for specific projects, above and beyond the duly-deliberated-about appropriations. Earmarks are the epitome of "pork."
A president has the same ability to affect earmarked spending as he does spending in an omnibus spending bill--very little . . . s/he can either allow the money to be spent or veto the ENTIRE bill.
I'm afraid that either your (a) spite for Bush or (b) adoration of Paul is blinding you to the obvious.
Post a Comment