Thursday, April 19, 2012

Ron Paul's Problem With Earmarks

I admit, it is difficult to prove that Ron Paul is an insider and controlled opposition. I maintain my suspicion because I worked closely with a member of an insider family (deMedici) who was also a national Tea Party Organizer. But that doesn't mean anything to people on this forum.

I don't like Ron Paul for several reasons. 1. connection with Alex Jones and friends, 2. Sustainable Defence Task Force, 3. Proponent of Legalization of Drugs (users need rehab, distributors need prosecution) 4. Membership Lamba Chi Alpha, 5. Didn't accept Medicaid 6. Wants a return to gold standard. 7. Routinely puts pork in bills and votes against them. 8. Romney is a viable alternative. 9. I don't agree with the Libertarian ideology.

Now, I've been reading up on pork and earmarks trying to learn exactly the process by which earmarks get put into bills. And I think this issue proves more than any other how Ron Paul is a "wolf in sheeps clothing". From what I can gather, Earmarks are put into bills while they are in committee. If you are on the Committee and the Commitee chair, then you can put earmarks in the bill. But usually Earmarks are used as a "payoff" for politicians to vote for a bill. If you will agree to vote for a bill, you get a little pork barrel reward for your vote. Thus, Republican-sponsored bills are loaded with Republican earmarks and Democratic bills are loaded with Democrate pork. I bet congressmen get extra rewards for crossing the aisle if the bill needs a few more votes to pass. (i should be a politician, I could really game this system).

So, my question is this: How does Ron Paul get so many Earmarks put into various bills if everyone knows he is going to vote against the bill? If Ron Paul gets Earmarks despite opposing bills, then he could only get them based on being an insider. Ron Paul is chairman of the House Budget Commitee this year but he hasn't prior. And especially during a Democratic controlled House, how did RP get "payoff" Earmarks with everyone knowing he'd vote against the bill?

For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork.

Again, what kind of connections does Ron Paul have to get Earmarks in legislation everyone knows he will vote against? My assumption is that Earmarks are "payoffs", "inducements" and "rewards" for supporting a piece of legislation. How does Ron Paul get Earmarks in legislation when he votes "NO" on almost everything?

In this speech Ron Paul says that he is in total support of Earmarks, Earmarks are good, and Everything Congress does should be Earmarked.

The problem is hear that Mr Constitution is forgetting the Constitutional issue here. Accirding to the Constitution, Federal government laws and appropriations should be for the "general welfare" and "common Defence". The problem with "entitlements" just like Ron Paul Pork is that it gives money to specific people and groups that has nothing whatever to do with being about the "general welfare" or the "common Defense". Is this hipocracy? I can't believe RP would defend his Pork in this way.

RP says Earmarks are good because the money would just go to the executive branch if not earmarked for his PET projects and crony political payoffs. This assumes that they have the total appropriation value first before the Earnarks. However, how it really works is that they add up the Earmarks and adds it to the bottom line.

Either way it doesn't matter, Taking 1% of the budget to payoff corrupt individual pet projects as "kickbacks" totally supports the whole system of corruption and violates the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution.

I know what RP says in defense of Earmarks. I have Read RPs talk on Earmarks. RP says the money would go to the Exeuctive Branch, its better to send it locally, only 1%, everything should be Earmarked. Just because RP gives a laundry list of reasons to defend Earmarks doesn't mean they are good reasons.

1. My question that I don't know, and why I am asking is: how does RP get Earmarks if he always votes NO. If I knew another mechanism for earmarks other than a "payoff", I wouldn't be asking the question. My question is: is there another mechanism for Earmarks?

2. Despite all the good reasons RP gives for Earmarks, I believe they violate the "general welfare" clause the same as entitlements do. This violation trumps any other argument. The best way to keep money locally controlled is to not tax and earmark it in the first place.

RP uses his policies (some good) to sets himself up as a "real alternative to the establishment candidates" (media quote). [Google: Ron Paul Outsider and behold the propaganda] However, RP's long history, consistent and admitted approval of Earmark "kickbacks" marks him as the insider he really is. Earmarks is at the very heart of the corrupt political system. Next is that Legislators don't actually write let alone read the bills and laws they sponsor and vote on (Illusion of a Republic).

3. By bypassing the Executive branch of Government in Earmarking Federal Funds to local individuals, doesn't this usurp Federal executive power? Doesn't Congressional Earmarking make Congress the Executive of this funds and not just the appropriators.

What I am saying is. Congress should say, we approve 1 billion dollars for the federal project that will benifit everyone. (general welfare and common defense). Then the Executive branch is supposed to get bids by contractors on the open market for the project.

In the Earmark system, the Congress is both the appropriator and the executive. The Legislator determines who specifically will get the Federal Funds. Even if the project goes up for a bid on the open market, the Legislator is still playing the Execuktive by selecting the winner of the contract. Thus we have a serious conflict of interest the separation of powers in the Constitution was designed to avoid.

No comments: