“Earmarking is simply getting that money back.”
No. Paul has to contort to a super flexible pretzel with his logic...and supporter like youself have to do the same.
The money is not spent. In fact the Fiscal year Budget are done in advance of the time the monies will be spent.
You are flat wrong. The lines can be changed. Paul’s argument is just a rationalization of pork spending in Earmarks.
The billions that have been earmarked are not debated, the;y are slipped in. The fact that the budget lines for distinct Budgets (Defense, Interior, Transportation, etc.) are set DOES NOT MEAN, the money is spent. It is not spend...and the EARMARKED MONEY (IN BILLIONS)...
...will come out of the finite pot of money that is obligated to be spent.
So, it is a corrupt way for Congressman to change the Budget without debate and scrutiny. Corruption, plain and simple.
Ok, “spent” means, for my argument, already taken away from the constituents.
I will give you credit for a at least decent familiarity with these terms.
Let’s go at this one again.
This sentence I think says it right.
The fact that the budget lines for distinct Budgets (Defense, Interior, Transportation, etc.) are set DOES NOT MEAN, the money is spent. It is not spend...and the EARMARKED MONEY (IN BILLIONS)...
...will come out of the finite pot of money that is obligated to be spent.
You are using the words more precisely, and I’m trying to describe the process more simply (if less accurately).
Ok. I said “spent”. You, more accurately, say “obligated to be spent”
The money is gone, it is “obligated to be spent” (yes, more accurate than “spent”).
That “obligated to be spent” is the vote on spending I was talking about.
Step 1.
Money is obligated to be spend. Ron Paul doesn’t vote for that obligating to be spent. He votes no. But then he loses. If everyone voted just like him there wouldn’t be that spending, but that’s a side issue, not on point.
Ok. Now, we’re done with step 1. The vote has been made, the money is approved to be spend. Ron Paul voted not to do that, but the RINOs and the Dems voted for the spending.
At this stage, there’s no controversy from you about what Ron Paul has done. He voted for no spending and he lost.
And Ron Paul is not going to be personally able to change, at all, the amount of the finite pot of money that is obligated to be spent. So what does he do?
Step 2 - Earmarks. He didn’t want to give Obama $1. But he lost, what can he do now. Well, he doesn’t want to give Obama a blank check. He does not believe that the Obama Administration has a better idea than his constituents do about what to do with the “finite pot of mone that is obligated to be spent” The question becomes, should Congressmen be able to take from that finite pot and spend it the way their consitituents want, or is it best that Obama gets to spend the money however he wants.
You admitted that it was a “finite pot of money that is obligated to be spent”. All Ron is doing is moving the money out of the control of Obama, and making sure that his constituents are getting what they were asking for. I guess Ron Paul doesn’t trust Obama.