Replies

There is a bit of hypocrisy among those who condemn the pork barrel spending of, say, John Murtha or Denny Hastert, yet defend that of Ron Paul. I don’t think that Congressman Paul’s projects are particularly bad: highways, mass transit, and waterways make up most of the earmarks. However, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to buy buses or dredge ship channels, certainly not from a strict constructionist viewpoint, which Paul claims in other matters. Paul is less of a Constitutional purist than he claims to be.

I agree. On the face, they are not bad pork bills, but it is the hypocrisy of condemning everyone else..

There is a bit of hypocrisy among those who condemn the pork barrel spending of, say, John Murtha or Denny Hastert, yet defend that of Ron Paul.

Not at all. There are regular earmarks (congressman asking for certain projects to be funded before the relevant federal agency is allowed to divide the remainder as it sees fit) and there are egregious earmarks, indulged in by members of both parties.

Remember the 19 Flake amendments, trying to strike down the Bridge To Nowhere and the Iowa rainforest? Those are truly bad earmarks. You notice that Flake did not go after all earmarks? No. Only the really bad ones. Many FReepers still don't seem to understand what Flake was doing and why. He was making a tiny dent in the vast waste and failed even that. Now, other conservative favorites like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo submit earmarks and they make deals and vote for earmarks (Duncan voted against all the Flake amendments). Nevertheless, many RP fans hold Duncan in high regard and it may be that Duncan knows his own district quite well and has certain very specific projects that he knows his communities need. And, provided he really is representing his district in that way (and not in some giant porkfest), most of us RP supporters have no big bone to pick with him on the issue.

Ron Paul says that eliminating earmarks altogether won't really solve the fundamental problem since all the funds used for earmarking are already allocated in the budget prior to any earmarking. You have to take the authority and the spending away from Congress and the bureaucrats and give it back to the states (not Gingich-style block grants, just abolish it). Remember, the federal bureaucracy takes its cut for overhead, plays socialism with wealth redistribution, creates a one-size-fits-none program for everyone, then sends the money back to the states but generally without fully funding it, requiring the states to spend even more and conform to federal requirements, even more overhead costs.

However, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to buy buses or dredge ship channels, certainly not from a strict constructionist viewpoint, which Paul claims in other matters.

The Framers saw two primary federal responsibilities: defense of the Republic and bridge/highway building to create a commerce system. You can look at most of his earmarks and see those are the biggest ones. Of the remaining, the earmarks committee is going to toss out things like renovating the old Edna theater so it can be the new lair of the Chamber of Commerce because they know Ron Paul just submitted it but would never want it funded. As for the others listed, they are only likely to be funded by Congress if other members also want such programs in their districts (things like funding nursing training). And for those items which are struck out by the earmarks committee, the money will go to the bureaucrats in the relevant agency and they will know that there is a certain demand for a project in that district and they can, if they choose, fund that project themselves; it might make the difference in choosing between funding two different projects if they know there is local support for one project and the other has none.

Paul is less of a Constitutional purist than he claims to be.

Neither were the Framers who, once elected, used earmarks as well. This is a practice that goes back to the Founders.

Ron Paul cuts no shady earmark deals. He doesn't vote for them because they always have unconstitutional programs in them, not because the earmarks themselves are in any way unconstitutional.

If you're pure enough, you can never be elected or serve. This is politics as well as governance. The Founders were not such naive idealists and created our checks/balances in federal government to curb the worst abuses.

[Sorry for the long post but the trolls are trying to deceive everyone about RP's record. They also don't understand earmarks and the federal budget process very well or they've chosen to be dishonest just to bash Ron Paul.]