Comment by Aaron Stichter

Entered on: 3/3/2009 10:54:41 AM

Rep. Ron Paul is a dedicated and reverent supporter of the Constitution. His use of earmarks actually is a credit to this reputation as opposed to a blemish. On the Wikipedia entry for earmark one can find the following description:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

This points out that an earmark is a mechanism that the LEGISLATIVE branch can exercise as is their right over the EXECUTIVE branch in detailing specifics on how money (already approved separately) will be spent.

His number one job as a Congressman is to represent his constituents. If Congress, collectively, has decided to spend, say, $100,000,000 on roads around the country, the decisions then need to be made on which roads to fix first. This can be done by the legislators or the executives. Earmarks are legislators making those decisions. The legislators with the most seniority, power or expertise are allowed to make these decisions. If the money is unallocated specifically when it leaves the Congress, the executive beaurocrats will decide. Either way the money is already spent, and Ron Paul always will have voted NO on that one!