[Austin Willard Wright]

Earmarks don't increase spending

Actually, they don't. Votes for bills do, however, and Paul's record is the best on that.

[.cnI redruM]

After he has already stuck the earmarks in a bill, that he knows good and well will pass by 80%, he then votes against it and claims to be a defender of the constitution.

[mnehring]

I see, tactic #3, marginalize those who oppose you.. I predict, tactic #4 will be... say "FR is no different than DU, they are so extreme Right Wing they loop back around and both form a fascist alliance.."
(of course, I know the debate on that is mixed because some of the Paulites think that makes Paul look too much like a moderate versus making other Republicans look to 'in the middle'...

[DugwayDuke]

to AWW with cc to .cni

“Actually, they don’t.” - AWW

Actually, earmarks do increase spending.

The spending process has two steps. First, the Authorization committes pass spending limits that are given to the Appropriations committees. The appropriation committees include the funding for the various agencies and then the earmarks. The only limit is that the appropriations cannot exceed the authorizations and the appropriations are usually less than the authorizations. If earmarks are not added, then the funding for the agencies goes forward to become law and the actually spending would be reduced by the amount of the earmarks not included.

Look at it like this. The authorization committes says DoD can have ten dollars to spend. The appropriations committee then divides the money up among the services and among the programs within the services. Quite often, the appropriations committes include things not even requested by the services. This funding, not requested by the agencies but added by influencial congressmen, are earmarks and do increase spending.

Ron Paul’s argument that earmarks do not affect spending is, like so many of Ron Paul’s arguements, a completely self-serving argument that he uses to justify his actions with little respect for truth.