Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 What percentage of earmarks are designated for pork projects? I'm wondering this because of the Ron Paul defense/rationalization that was in the other thread. I've always been of the mind that almost all earmarks are pork. In fact, it is such swine that the legislators didn't have nerve to put it into a bill honestly, but rather hid it in something else, because they knew on its own it stood no chance of ever being funded or accepted. So, is McCain correct or Paul. What percentage of earmarks are pork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 IMHO, anything that is included in a bill that doesn't have anything to do with the primary purpose of said bill is pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 More, I saw earmarks as payoffs for votes which might be a meat even lower quality than pork. I'm with you, Zguy and that's pretty unusual these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 What percentage of earmarks are designated for pork projects? I'm wondering this because of the Ron Paul defense/rationalization that was in the other thread. I've always been of the mind that almost all earmarks are pork. In fact, it is such swine that the legislators didn't have nerve to put it into a bill honestly, but rather hid it in something else, because they knew on its own it stood no chance of ever being funded or accepted.So, is McCain correct or Paul. What percentage of earmarks are pork? LOL, I guess I should start. Yes, 100% of earmarks are pork. But the pork comes first via appropriations, the earmarks simply outline where that pork gets spent (IE: transparency) Without the earmark listes once the bill has passed, then we would be blind to where the money goes. So both are actually correct in part, but without "pork" in the appropriations, there couldnt possibly be an earmark for it to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 pork are earmarks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I thought that any part of the pig was pork, whether it's the ear, the loins, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 LOL, I guess I should start.Yes, 100% of earmarks are pork. But the pork comes first via appropriations, the earmarks simply outline where that pork gets spent (IE: transparency) Ah, so Paul is against all pork unless it's 100% pure pork. It's a quality control issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 What percentage of earmarks are pork? It depends on who you ask right? What I consider pork some will defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Ah, so Paul is against all pork unless it's 100% pure pork. It's a quality control issue. Oh man! We havent had quality control in terms of spending in decades! Thanks for the thread btw, its a confusing issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 Your welcome. Honestly, I don't quite get your explanation. What I'm reading is that Paul believes by hiding earmarks within unrelated legislation he is being more transparent and honest. That seems like a heck of a rationalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Your welcome. Honestly, I don't quite get your explanation. What I'm reading is that Paul believes by hiding earmarks within unrelated legislation he is being more transparent and honest. That seems like a heck of a rationalization. Whoa! I really miscommunicated it then!! LOL! let me try again please. OK, a bill is presented to congress appropriations for approval. There is a set dollar figure approved. This dollar figure will most likely have pork baked within it (if history is our guide). Once the bill is passed the money is literally spent. Then individual congress-people make their attempts to get their "share" of the bill via earmark requests. without the earmarking, there will be no knowledge of where the $ (that is already spent) goes to. Paul is against the spending entirely but wants to keep the earmark process in place so we know where the money goes. He in no way wants hidden pork.(nor any pork for that matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Seems to me that if it's something that a particular Rep doesn't want to be voted on directly, it's almost assuredly pork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 waste is waste. Not all earmarks are waste. Many earmarks go to worthy projects such as infrastructure, hospitals, schools, police. People are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 waste is waste. Not all earmarks are waste. Believe it or not, I agree with you!! (whoa!!LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 without the earmarking, there will be no knowledge of where the $ (that is already spent) goes to. That's actually not true. In most cases, it is well known where the money will go to some extent. What an ear mark does many times is says, you have to use this money to do X at place Y and pay Z company to do it. Obviously, if you say in the bill that this money must be used to do X, you know where the money is going. It is going to do X. If you don't want X done, you shouldn't have appropriated money to do so. Once you say you want X done, you should let the process (e.g. competitive bidding) to take place. At the LEAST, the money is going to a particular agency/dept. with a particular set of roles, which are historically well known if not legislatively controlled and mandated. It isn't like the Dept. of Ed is taking in money, and then using it to buy guns, and the military isn't going to take money and use it to build schools. Everybody knows what the Dept. of Ed does and in some cases, they've been told what they have to do by Congress. So in fact, if the Dept. of Ed knows historically it will have several million of dollars of earmarks attached to their budget that don't really need to be carried out and are essentially political paybacks and know that to do what they normally do that needs to be done/is legislatively mandated they need $500 million. They are going to ask for $500 million + the several million of ear marks the expect when making their budget. I can't tell you the number of times, I've heard people work at the funding agencies say, 'There is this great project we would like to fund, but can't because X amount of our money is tied up in earmarks.' They know that earmarks are coming and try and essentially write budgets over what they want to try and account for it. If you told agency heads, there will be no earmarks next year, you'd get different looking budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 That's actually not true. In most cases, it is well known where the money will go to some extent.What an ear mark does many times is says, you have to use this money to do X at place Y and pay Z company to do it. Obviously, if you say in the bill that this money must be used to do X, you know where the money is going. It is going to do X. If you don't want X done, you shouldn't have appropriated money to do so. Once you say you want X done, you should let the process (e.g. competitive bidding) to take place. At the LEAST, the money is going to a particular agency/dept. with a particular set of roles, which are historically well known if not legislatively controlled and mandated. It isn't like the Dept. of Ed is taking in money, and then using it to buy guns, and the military isn't going to take money and use it to build schools. Everybody knows what the Dept. of Ed does and in some cases, they've been told what they have to do by Congress. So in fact, if the Dept. of Ed knows historically it will have several million of dollars of earmarks attached to their budget that don't really need to be carried out and are essentially political paybacks and know that to do what they normally do that needs to be done/is legislatively mandated they need $500 million. They are going to ask for $500 million + the several million of ear marks the expect when making their budget. I can't tell you the number of times, I've heard people work at the funding agencies say, 'There is this great project we would like to fund, but can't because X amount of our money is tied up in earmarks.' They know that earmarks are coming and try and essentially write budgets over what they want to try and account for it. If you told agency heads, there will be no earmarks next year, you'd get different looking budgets. Thats a good take on it too Peter. I think we are seeing it a bit differently, but I respect your point of view nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I meant to post this yesterdaay but got wrapped up in work stuff.. This is a statement from Congressman Paul on earmark reform. I hope it better explains his position than I was able to. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1070 Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives April 10, 2008 Madame Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding the constitutional role Congress plays in determining how federal funds are spent. Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending. Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue-- the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports. Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars. Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers. Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit. Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority--restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I meant to post this yesterdaay but got wrapped up in work stuff..This is a statement from Congressman Paul on earmark reform. I hope it better explains his position than I was able to. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1070 I won't quote the whole thing, but 1. It doesn't in fact eliminate Congress' authority to control where funds go. It just means they actually have to put it in the law and get it passed with an actual vote vs. adding in committees designed to match House bills w/ Senate bills that never get revoted on. I'd be shocked if the founding father's intended for Congress to be able to direct funds W/O ever actually holding a vote on where the funds are going. 2. If you don't like how the bureacrats are spending money, Congress does have the ability to change the rules regarding how appropriations are made and even control how bureacrats are hired. 3. I'm not sure it won't reduce the budget as the points I made above, but AT LEAST I'm sure it will mean we get more bang for our buck across the board because the fact of the vast majority of times those bureacrats make better decisions about what actually should be a priority, how to address the priority, and use competitive bidding processes to actually carry out the work. I love the whole let's bash the bureacrats thing. Here's a challenge for you, find one case where there is a real issue with how money has been spent that hasn't been politically motivated and was NOT directed by the President (or somebody else high in the executive branch (e.g Cheney)), Congress via an earmark, or legislatively mandated. For example, what is the project that the DOT bureacrats decided needed to be done independent of political issues and spent money on where there is now a real issue with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.