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.
According to the founding fathers, government should be no larger than 14% to 17% of the population taken by the census.
In addition, the framers wrote that European, communist, or monarchy style legislation is unconstitutional.
The Vice president is the most important part of our government because he/she is chair of the senate.
The senate must stay in constitutional order. The Vice President must be setting in on all sessions to keep the senate in point of order, and break any tie vote.
These types of legislation should never get out of the senate, European, communist, or monarchy. These bills must be sent back to the house to be reworked.
Should it get out of the senate and through the committees and to the president’s desk the president must turn to the people and read the legislation to the them and explain the type of legislation and get the people to get their house to remove that legislation or he will veto the bill.
How many Vice Presidents and Presidents has adhered to the founding fathers wishes since the ratification of the Bill Of Rights?
I submit to you, not one.
Think about it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
In order to intelligently discuss Earmark Reform could someone here please answer some basic questions for me? I’ve become somewhat confused with opinions after reading these posts. Please be clear and concise with simple explanations.
How does the earmark process work?
Does an earmark add or subtract from the original appropriation?
When, why and how did the earmark process start?
What are some of the major earmark reforms being proposed by Ron Paul?
Thank you. JB. RON PAUL 2012
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.”
John Adams
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
March 27-29, 2009
The Free Market, Financial Style
How the Scam Works
By MICHAEL HUDSON
Newspaper reports seem surprised at how high banks are bidding for the junk mortgages that Treasury Secretary Geithner is now bidding for, having mobilized the FDIC and Fed to transfer yet more public funds to the banks. Bank stocks are soaring – thereby bidding up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as if the “financial industry” really were part of the industrial economy.
Why are the very worst offenders – Bank of America (now owner of the Countrywide crooks) and Citibank the largest buyers? As the worst abusers and packagers of CDOs, shouldn’t they be in the best position to see how worthless their junk mortgages are?
That turns out to be the key! Obviously, the government has failed to protect itself – deliberately, intentionally failed to do so – in order to let the banks pull off the following scam.
Suppose a bank is sitting on a $10 million package of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that was put together by, say, Countrywide out of junk mortgages. Given the high proportion of fraud (and a recent Fitch study found that every package it examined was rife with financial fraud), this package may be worth at most only $2 million as defaults loom on Alt-A “liars’ loan” mortgages and subprime mortgages where the mortgage brokers also have lied in filling out the forms for hapless borrowers or witting operators taking out mortgages at far more than properties were worth and pocketing the excess.
The bank now offers $3 million to buy back this mortgage. What the hell, the more they bid, the more they get from the government. So why not bid $5 million. (In practice, friendly banks may bid for each other’s junk CDOs.) The government – that is, the hapless FDIC – puts up 85 per cent of $5 million to buy this – namely, $4,250,000. The bank only needs to put up 15 per cent – namely, $750,000.
Here’s the rip-off as I see it. For an outlay of $750,000, the bank rids its books of a mortgage worth $2 million, for which it receives $4,250,000. It gets twice as much as the junk is worth.
The more the banks holding junk mortgages pay for this toxic waste, the more the government will pay as part of its 85 per cent. So the strategy is to overpay, overpay, and overpay. Paying 15 per cent is a small price to pay for getting the government to put in 85 per cent to take the most toxic waste off your books.
The free market at work, financial style.
Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached at mh@michael-hudson.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Michael Hudson.
You are seriously mistaken with your statement “The free market at work, financial style.” The Fed.Govt. created this scam upon itself by inventing the process through FDIC,Fanny & Freddy; insisting on the banks participation with the threat of withholding Federal Reserve $$.
Whether this was an intentional conspiracy by the Federal Govt. and the banks, as you suppose, is yet to be proven. What was their motive? I believe the Govt. in it’s arrogance and ignorance brought this upon us, the Citizen Taxpayer. The real “Ultimate Lender of Last Resort”.
Without the Govt’s. coercion of the Free Market lenders in this equation these loans would never have been made. The Federal Govt. set itself up to be conned by putting into action their Progressive Socialist belief of Equal Outcomes. It’s just not fair that people who can’t afford a loan, (home nor credit card) can’t get one because they don’t qualify. “I’m from the Gov’t and I’m here to help.” Just because you didn’t make enough $$ to pay taxes doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get a tax refund.
The real problem here is too much arrogant & ignorant Federal interference in our lives. The Federal Gov. has given to itself powers far beyond those outlined in the Constitution. “Kick the Bums Out.” JB.
“END THE FED” Ron Paul 2012
You also reference Michael Hudson as a source for this “Free Market” catastrophe . Please provide a direct quote
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I ask 3 things:
1. Where, without reading the entire bills, can a list be seen showing the names, state, amount and purpose for “earmarks” in each bill?
2. Given the current Fed. spending (earkmarks included) what are the ratios by state of tax money rec’d and $ spent in that state?
3. Taxes are for spending both at the fed level (defense) and the local level (bridges). Without the “hidden” process of earmarks how better could we spend our money locally? I suggest the Feds “skim” a known % for the defense et al issues and then return the difference paid in by state to the state to spend as they see fit based on the ratios in #2 above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Here’s a link I found which describes Ron Paul’s position quite [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I want to know why you talk about earmark and you have and you have millions of earmarks. Is this pay back for campaign contributions? T Carroll
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is obviously not payback for campaign contributions. Earmarks provide transparency of spending. They allow people to know exactly how the funds are being spent. It’s not like Representatives just “earmark” a lump sum of cash to disburse at their discretion. Nope, that’s the job of the Federal governement. Did you read RP’s speech?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RP is doing 2 things: fighting for reform, and in the meantime playing the game to win. In the current landcape of politics, the fed taxes everyone, skims some money off the top, and then redistributes their money back them. RP says this shouldn’t be happening, thus eliminate the income tax. However, seeing as that isn’t happening anytime soon, he has to represent and support his constiuents by earmarking their money back to them.
It’s the unfortunate truth, he could not earmark out of principle that the fed shouldn’t be taxing people anyways, but that would screw his state over. He has to play the game to win until such time as he is successful in changing the way dollars flow to goverment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the real big problem with earmarks is that congress for the most part(rp and a few will)do not read earmark bills but just pass them! they are the most transparent, and they should always be there but need to be read through! the omnibus bill has set aside tattoo removal mission hills ca.! that is a bad earmark! i hope i am coming off right in how i am saying it but more earmarks is great, but make sure they are truely needed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I only wish RP would articulate in this debate on earmarks his position on local authority of tax collection, and reduction of taxes provided to the fed. The American tax payer sees such a small amount of their federal dollars actually made available back to them because of federal overhead, the central spending in various programs, etc. If all the federal programs that were reallocated back to the states were instead just taxed at the local level, more money would actually be spent in the local infrastructure instead of lost to the fed in operating costs and various social and military programs (or some best friend’s contract award).
It’s not the earmarks that are the problem, its the fact that the fed has claimed power to distribute funds that the states should be collecting themselves. That of course then inherently passes the power from the states to the fed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0