[rabscuttle385]

ping!

[St. Louis Conservative]

I have to say I agree with Ron Paul here.

Earmarks are bad politics, but they pale in comparison to some of the things Obama is trying to ram through.

[gusopol3]

right, after all, what’s wrong with someone earmarking $1m to a hospital that turns around and triples his wife’s salary (for a made- up job) (that nobody had before) (and was eliminated when she left it ) (after all a gal’s gotta get earring money somewhere).

[djsherin]

Ron Paul Ping!

[Petronski]

To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

There's a juicy rationalization if ever there was one.

[TWohlford]

A one percent is a good start. It is about 1/10th of the amount that we should cut in real spending power in the pre-Obama budget levels.

This would be akin to saying that we should continue foreign aid since it’s not that big of a percentage. Or NEA funding for “P*ss Christ” wasn’t that much money compared to a B1 bomber. Or, that $500 toilet seats weren’t that bad compared with the cost of Medicaid.

I’m sorry, but these are all poster children for a much deeper problem on Capitol Hill. By using the excuses that Ron Paul uses, he’s decided that the cesspool that is Washington politics is really a jacuzzi.

[timm22]

The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state.

I'm very sympathetic to Congressman Paul and I generally admire his work. But I think he is being somewhat disingenuous here.

Yes, the total level of spending may be determined before earmarks are allocated. But I imagine that Congressional leaders factor in earmarks when they decide to set the total spending levels. By padding the total level they can make room for additional earmarks for several Congressmen, which means a few extra votes for the bill (or some other debt to be called at a later time).

Suppose Congress is determining the total level of spending for unconstitutional project "X". They determine (by whatever means) that $100 million will be enough to accomplish their objectives. But they know the vote will be close. They also know they can get the extra 10 votes needed if they set total spending at $110 million, so that 10 reluctant Congressman can earmark $1 million for their districts.

Technically, the earmarks aren't increasing the already-established total spending amount. But without the Congressional earmark system, you may nevertheless have had a lower spending level. Or maybe you wouldn't have the unconstitutional program at all, since you couldn't buy votes for it in the first place.

I don't think Paul's use of earmarks makes him totally worthless as a politician. It's not that big of a flaw compared to the lapses of many other Republicans (who strangely are admired by many of Congressman Paul's sharpest critics). Still, as someone who presents himself as a steadfast and consistent limited government advocate, he should be above even this minor flaw.

[takenoprisoner]

IBTLT

In before the looney tunes trademark.

[Allegra]

The real issue is that the overall budget is too big, by far, which is why I always vote against it. But attacking the 1 percent that was earmarked solves nothing. The whole issue is a distraction from the real problems we face, which are that the Federal Government will absorb over 1/3 of our country’s GDP this year and taxpayers are forced to fork over more than half their income to fund government at all levels. On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen. The recent increases in bailouts, government spending and money creation is going to hobble our economy for decades. We must curb the government’s appetite severely if this country is ever to thrive again.

I agree with Paul on this one.