What exactly may Congressmen spend money on earmarks? Could they possibly use earmark money to provide school vouchers and direct money handouts to their constituents?
Earmarks just mean that money is allocated for a specific purpose for a congressman. It could be used for a useless musuem, or it could be for vouchers. They don’t amount to much, it’s usually a red herring by conservatives.
I know it’s a red herring for conservatives. My point being that since earmarks are really a redirection of money away from the executive branch towards a single Congressman’s district, it could be possible for the Congressman to arrange some kind of deal to ease the burden of taxes. For example, if I’m the Congressman of the average district comprising 650,000 constituents, I could stick in various checks to my constituents, a la the stimulus check as a way to repay them for their taxes.
Interesting question. The only problem I can think of is the political reality of getting this done. I bet you have to do favors for the other congressmen, especially committee members, to get your earmarks through…
Ron Paul was actually questioned about his ear mark spending. Check it out..His responce is better than any I can offer..No point in reinventing the wheel. =D
Why may they do this? Because it’s a payoff for their agreement to vote for the bill.
Usually its no a “redirection away from the executive branch” but an additional redirection away from the taxpayers to the amount needed to accomplish the objective of the bill.
I guess you could use it to redirect the additional monies toward all citizens you represent, if you could word that in short and in an acceptable manner. In either case I find the practice completely immoral and unethical.
I thought Ron Paul had a perfectly clean record on earmarks = none.
Ron Paul submits earmark requests, and his district usually receives them.
He submits them because it is his job as their representative to do so.
He votes against them because they are unconstitutional.
His constituents get their earmarks anyway so they don’t vote him out.
Paul makes his point, people get their money back (Texas is a net tax producer) and everyone is happy.
The best description of Ron Paul’s approach to earmarks that I’ve seen is the Pizza Parable:
You and a group of friends are deciding on what to have for dinner. You argue for Chinese food because it’s much more economical, while your friends all want to order pizza. They decide to put it up for a vote, but before you vote, you say that, if pizza is what is decided on, you want to earmark two pieces. The vote is taken, you vote for Chinese food, but pizza wins out. However, you still get to eat.
So you think what he does is imoral? just asking?
Yes I do. Of course by now I also think that all of government is immoral. But specifically, to take money from all the people to give it to some few favored people is immoral. Especially when this favoritism is only for the purpose of “buying votes”. Buying votes is also immoral. Cheer up, I have a very long list of immoral activities.
Ron Paul votes against his own earmarks. All bills that go through Congress have a certain amount of spending attached to them. When you earmark that spending, you’re simply specifying what that spending is going towards. By earmarking that spending for his district, Ron Paul is moving that money away from the federal government, which is a benefit. Since he votes against the entire bill, he is also voting against his own earmark. Thus, nothing immoral is being done, from what I can see.
News Flash. The money is already taken. Congress is just deciding what to do with it.
Taking Ron Paul’s earmarks off the bill would not reduce spending a single cent, that money would simply be handed over to the bureaucracy to be spent as it sees fit.
If I had to choose between 100% earmarks and 0% earmarks, I’d probably go with 100%. Atleast congressmen are artificially accountable through elections, unlike a bureaucrat.