Someone needs to tell Ron Paul that Earmarks are not in the constitution.
Someone needs to tell GraceG that representing the residents of a congressional district (by forwarding on their funding requests to the house appropriations committee) is, by definition, the duty of a member of the House of Representatives.
“Someone needs to tell Ron Paul that Earmarks are not in the constitution.”
Actually it is,...under Article 1, section 8. Doesn’t matter what you call it terminologically, semantically, or philosophically.
Approving things that cost money is the responsibility of Congress. Bottom line is, every funding approval has to be voted upon. Those that allowed themselves to fall out of political power have to quit whining and be a little more responsive to those they govern.
Those that are for earmarks, ensure that specific money goes to their specific projects/state, regardless of the president’s and his cabinet’s agenda. To do so means you have given power BACK to the president.
Those against earmarks believe their impact should not be automatically funded. These people believe regular, congressional oversight committees will address the funding questions.
Here is my question....why doesn’t Congress pass a law that states all congressional funding bills, aka Omnibus bills, require a minimum of one month review before being considered (in lieu of times of national disaster)? That way, all this last minute, just-wanna-get-home-for-christmas attitude will not prevail...
Actually, what isn't in the Constitution is giving open-ended check to the executive departments to spend as they see fit to further a bureaucratic agenda.
All money should be earmarked by Congress. Paul's earmarks should be judged on the basis of whether or not what he has earmarked the money for is an enumerated power under the Constitution.