“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.”
BS! The maximum spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees. Actual spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees who take the spending requested by the Federal Agencies and add the spending requested by members of Congress (earmarks). Eliminate the earmarks and you reduce actual spending.
“Now, will you explain why you believe that Congress should just appropriate our money and hand it over to unelected bureaucrats who cannot be fired without directing how it should be spent?”
Perhaps you might wish to explain why you believe members of Congress should just appropriate our money to bribe voters to vote for them or others to donate campaign funds to them which is eactly what an earmark is?
The maximum spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees. Actual spending levels are determined by the Authorization Committees who take the spending requested by the Federal Agencies and add the spending requested by members of Congress (earmarks). Eliminate the earmarks and you reduce actual spending.
That's not how the Constitution reads, nor is it what they say on the
House website.
When considering appropriations measures, Congress is exercising the power granted to it under the Constitution, which states, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Total new budget authority and outlays are also distributed among both the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over spending, thereby setting spending ceilings for each committee (see “Allocations” section below). 12 Once the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations receive their spending ceilings, they separately distribute the funding among their respective subcommittees, providing a spending ceiling for each subcommittee.
But you could be right. I don't know much about the process, and am relying only on what was written by a 9 term congresscritter and what is on the House website. Your source?
I notice your signature mentions Dr. Paul's position on abortion. Tell me something: do you agree or disagree with
his statement on that subject:
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.
In a world in which we have had court cases about whether or not being too near to a school with a gun, growing your own wheat or cannabis, building your own machine gun, rape, assisted suicide, and being an indigenous California toad are interstate commerce, I am beginning to think
Justice Thomas was right when he said that the current use of the commerce clause "makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"
So, is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce in your view, or did Ron Paul go around the Constitutional limits on federal power by voting for the federal partial birth abortion ban? I think he exceeded his power, and he thinks so too, but did it anyway.