Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One: Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk ^ | June 18, 2007 | Ron Paul

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
Congressman Ron Paul
June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

RON PAUL is the RIGHT Candidate for Tax-Cutting fiscal conservatives.

• Ron Paul is ranked by Human Events as the biggest Tax Cutter in all of Congress. Paul Named #1 Tax Cutter in Congress: “(Paul) is a co-sponsor… of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th amendment and end income, gift, and estate taxes. Regularly pushes for tax cuts. Sponsor of bills to allow tax credits for private school tuition, to permit tax deduction of college tuition, and to stop all taxation of Social Security benefits. Opposes all unconstitutional spending programs.”
• Ron Paul has ranked in the 99th percentile of the National Taxpayer Union ratings every year he has been in Congress -- thus standing head and shoulders above his big government Republican rivals like gun-grabber John McCain, transvestite Rudy Giuliani, "Amnesty Sam" Brownback, Mike "Bill Clinton embodies the American Dream" Huckabee, and Pork-Barrel King Duncan Hunter.

Ron Paul Weekly Podcast. Ron Paul's website with indexed text of his weekly messages
Same message offered toll-free at 888-322-1414. Audio is 5 minutes, fresh every Monday.
Eventful - Ron Paul - Tour Schedule, Event Calendar, Demands
Ron Paul 2008 Meetups in your area
• [Join] or [Leave] the Ron Paul Pinglist •

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Latest from Ron Paul

[Drango]

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What, you oppose reducing Federal Spending?

[Lurker]

L

[Puddleglum]

He is perhaps the lone voice of reason on the bloated FedGuv as being the source of our problems, not the solution to them.

[ClaireSolt]

I went through all of the earmarks in the transportation bill looking for something. To me, most were unconstitutional because they funded strictly local projects. No way they were covered by interstate commerce. It would be much better to cut taxes and leave the money in the community than to send it to DC and then wrangle to bring it back as pork.

[neb52]

He needs to run against Kay Baily Hutchinson for Senator. I think most Texans would agree that he just doesn’t fit the executive mold.

[rob777]

“He needs to run against Kay Baily Hutchinson for Senator.”

Not a bad idea.

[Oberon]

Nice. What are you, eleven?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Nice. What are you, eleven?

I dunno how old he is. How old do you have to be to recognize an idiot troll, anyway? Take that age and work up, and you will have a good range estimate.

[Oberon]

Well, okay. I guess you got me there. =]

[LibertarianInExile]

“I think most Texans would agree that he just doesn’t fit the executive mold.”

I think that he ‘doesn’t fit the executive mold’ we’ve had since Reagan is an excellent resume line for RP, personally.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Rodney King]

I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

As long as Dems run congress, there will never be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government. We also have learned since 2000 that as long as the GOP controls both branches, there will never be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

[radioman]

he just doesn’t fit the executive mold.

One more reason to vote for Ron Paul!
.

[Rodney King]

No way they were covered by interstate commerce.

Yeah, but that part of the constitution was thrown out long ago. I studied this once, but forget the case names... Basically, some time ago a man who grew crops on his farm and didn't even sell them, but rather used them to feed his livestock, challenged the various agriculture regulations. The court ruled that his farming affected how much feed he had to buy for his livestock, so his farming affected interstate commerce and therefore the laws as applied to him were constitutional.

At some point (in the 50's or 60's) a segregated BBQ joint in a southern state refused to obey Federal civil rights laws, saying that the BBQ joint was not involved with interstate BBQ. The Court ruled that people travelling in interstate commerce sometimes got off of the highway and ate at the restaurant, so the BBQ join was involved in interstate commerce.

Yes, its all absurd.

[oblomov]

>>Basically, some time ago a man who grew crops on his farm
>>and didn’t even sell them, but rather used them to feed his livestock, challenged the various agriculture regulations

Wickard vs. Filburn (1938)

>>At some point (in the 50’s or 60’s) a segregated BBQ joint in a southern state refused to obey Federal civil
>>rights laws, saying that the BBQ joint was not involved with interstate BBQ.

Newman vs. Piggy Park Enterprises (1968)

Read ‘em and weep... there are NO constraints on federal power....

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Thanks for the PING. Paul nails it, as usual.

The GOP completely urinated away whatever chance they had at reducing the size and power of the federal government. And none of the other GOP candidates with the probable exception of Fred Thompson is advocating limited government either.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The GOP completely urinated away whatever chance they had at reducing the size and power of the federal government. And none of the other GOP candidates with the probable exception of Fred Thompson is advocating limited government either.

Amongst the declared candidates, Tancredo's actual voting record on Fiscal Conservatism is second only to Paul's. He's just not talking about it very much -- he's very deliberately running on a "one-note platform" of opposing Illegal Immigration; and, given his respectable fundraising numbers for a second-teir candidate, it's clear that his message has some resonance.

I just don't think he can actually win the nomination by running on One issue, period. Still, he can get his message out, at least.

But, yeah -- while Tancredo's record on Fiscal Conservatism is excellent (according to National Taxpayer's Union, his worst rating ever was as the 13th most Fiscally-Conservative Representative in the entire House; at his best, he's rated as high as 4th, ahead of every other GOP candidate except Paul).... Ron Paul is the only one who's really talking about it.