One big problem with Congress

Ron Paul and Earmarks
By David Kretzmann on November 30th, 2011

Earmarks are typically given a bad rap, sometimes for legitimately good reasons. However, when politicians like John McCain nearly base their entire presidential campaign on earmarks alone, it is blowing this issue wildly out of proportion. Blaming earmarks for the national debt burden is like blaming a single mosquito for your blood loss while Dracula is leeching you dry.
[Don't confuse earmarks with something like on the level of waging a war on the credit card]

Ron Paul is often called “inconsistent” for his views and actions relating to earmarks. Even libertarian Gary Johnson recently said, “[Ron Paul] sticks his earmarks (spending projects) in the budget, but then votes against it. I can’t do that. I can’t play that kind of game.”

Ron Paul does indeed stick earmark spending projects into certain pieces of legislation, even though he always votes against the legislation anyway. What gives, you ask? Let’s take a look at Ron Paul’s own reasoning.

“If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny. Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes.” ~ Ron Paul; March 16, 2009

One more important piece that Paul explains in his 2009 article:

“The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. 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. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch.”

Ron Paul would undoubtedly prefer that most of the funds allocated to the federal government’s budget be left to the people in the first place. Unfortunately, that is not an available option in this age of economic and military statism. As a single Congressman, Paul can play his own part to ensure that taxpayer dollars (which are guaranteed to be spent by the federal government) are locally allocated through Congress (rather than the Executive branch or inefficient federal bureaucracies).

Paul is simply arguing that taxpayer dollars, if they must indeed go through the government, should be allocated through Congress whenever possible. Ron Paul can still vote against the legislation and any unbalanced budgets – which he does – while retaining his status as a pure libertarian operating in a utilitarian fashion within a very broken system.

 

There is a difference between earmarking a bridge that goes someplace and a bridge that goes to an island for a couple dozen houses.

 

IMHO, the Problem with Congress is....

....There not term limits! We need to rid this country of career politicians, and make sure they don't do what they are doing in California (since term limits went into play), and that is switching to another position when they reach their limits in the first position. :type:

 

>The Senate just passed S-1867 - a lengthy defense authorization bill. Someone snuck a short paragraph in there - which deletes from the UCMJ the prohibition of sodomy.

Is there any evidence that sodomy hinders winning wars? Wasn't it endemic in the British officer corps for centuries?