Paul reportedly reverses on core campaign pledge

They're spending way too much money, and they have no idea what it's going to be spent on and most of the time neither they or the public knows what it ultimately was spent on.

He changed my mind on earmarks with far greater ease than the income tax.

So you believe that 536 members of Congress have the ability to determine where and how $14,000,000,000,000.00 is being spent?

No. I believe the members of Congress need to cut the budget down to but a fraction of that figure.

Yet you support Representative Paul's statement that Congress should do more earmarking.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense, especially given the controsversy over earmarks, which was a primary reason for Alan Mollohan losing his Congressional election in May.

On April 7, 2006, The New York Times reported that Mollohan "has fueled five non-profit groups in his West Virginia district with $250 million in earmark funding." Mollohan created these nonprofit groups, which include the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation, Institute for Scientific Research, Canaan Valley Institute, Vandalia Heritage Foundation, and MountainMade Foundation. Leaders of these groups were sometimes investors with him, possibly leading to his own personal gain.

So how do you separate the earmarks of Representative Mollohan from the earmarks of Representative Paul? How do we know that Representative Paul is not increasing his personal wealth tenfold with the $73,000,000.00 he doled out last year?

Aaron, do you understand the meaning of the words transparent and transparency?

Look, you asked me if I think the 536 members of Congress have the ability to determine where the money should go. I'm going to tell you what I know.

I know there are a number of physicians serving in the House & the Senate. I know there are too many lawyers. I know there are members serving with years of military experience and other members with experience in business. There are a lot of people from all kinds of life experience and business experience who have been educated in some of our nations finest institutions.

I also know that these individuals serve on various committees and subcommittees where their knowledge and experience and expertise should be utilized to decide what programs and projects should be funded, and just how much money should be provided in a given fiscal year. These committees should be holding public hearings to discuss how the taxpayers' money is to be spent.

Once again, personally I would dismantle entire agencies and eliminate Cabinet positions. My federal budget would be but a fraction of the budgets we are seeing today.

We know Representative Paul is making money by publishing books and investing in precious metals. We know he isn't making money off the earmarks because he is very public about his earmarks. He doesn't make backroom deals over Cuban cigars and cognac. That isn't how he operates and he makes it pretty damn clear that isn't how Congress should operate.

So then you do believe 535 people can micro-manage a $14,000,000,000,000.00 budget and how every penny is spent?

I don't believe the budget should be anything in the ball park of $14,000,000,000,000.00.

I believe if they were forced to account for how it all is to be spent it would be a lot less.

I'm sorry. I've been quoting the national debt. Spending is a little over $3.5 Trillion dollars per year. Of course, this is pre-Obama.



I'm not asking you what spending should be, I'm asking you if you honestly believe the 535 individuals America has elected as our Congressional Representatives should micro-manage how every penny is spent?

You call it micro-management, I do not. I call it OVERSIGHT. $3.5 BILLION and how much of it is waste? How much is spent on fraud? How much of it is spent on USELESS projects? You're going to have to forgive me, I want transparency. I want oversight. I want something different from the bullshit that's been going on over there all of my life. We're broke, we can't afford it.

That's all well and good Stephanie but none of it is going to happen anytime soon so you can call it whatever you like, I'm asking you for the umpteenth time, do you honestly believe the 535 people who represent Americans in Washington can manage how it is spent to the penny?

No, but that is NOT what I'm saying I want. That's what YOU are saying I want.

Stephanie wrote:No, but that is NOT what I'm saying I want. That's what YOU are saying I want.

Sorry Steph, but you're already on record stating that is exactly what you want. I guess I overread the last sentance. Had I caught it, I wouldn't have continued to ask you a question you already answered.

Stephanie wrote:When Ron Paul speaks, I listen. When I disagree, I research. The man is just right nearly all the time, if not all the time, on pretty much every subject. I'm serious, he is almost always correct. He's not only really intelligent, he has spent his 70+ years very wisely and is a very well educated man in a variety of fields. He's smarter than me. He knows a whole lot more than me. He has earned not only my respect, but a good deal of my trust. IMHO, he is absolutely correct about earmarks. EVERYTHING should be an earmark.

I'm sorry but I have to respectively disagree what your desire for Congress to micro-manage our budget.

You want them to approve budgets without knowing what the money will be spent on.

And you can show me the post where I said that? Honestly Stephanie, I expect that that tactic from almost everyone on this forum. You are one of two people that I thought would never resort to it. It is beneath you.

For the record, could I wave a magic wand and get what I wanted, it would be for Congress do debate spending in a very specific way, implement measures to eliminate fraud and waste and install a budgetary process that requires every agency and entity that receives federal dollars to submit through a process very detailed budgets that must be adhered to and voted on by Congress.

What I don't believe is viable is for Congress to Micro-manage how EVERY dollar we as a nation spend is dolled out.

First and foremost, no matter how transparent we might think a Congressmen or Senator is, there is always the opportunity for fraud with earmarks. That is an undeniable fact and IMHO, when one has higher aspirations as Rep Paul does, it is nothing more then an added incentive for abuse. The only way to eliminate the potential for fraud or abuse is to eliminate the process of earmarks. It’s one of those checks and balance thingy’s this country was founded on.

Second, the claim that the legislative branch determines where the money is incorrect. As you noted, Congress has oversight authority and if they manage the budgetary process as it should be and hold existing agencies responsible for meeting the needs, they should not have to dictate how each dollar is spent.

We put in place these agencies leadership to ensure the money is being spent correctly and if there is a problem, either eliminate the entity (I agree with, if not doing away with then at least greatly reducing Homeland Security, the IRS and the Department of Education to begin with) or replace the leaders we place in those positions.

Congressional Representatives simply do not have the time, experiences or resources to micro-manage how Americans spend each dollar as OC’s foray into this conversation displays.

I understand you put a lot of time and effort into each subject Stephanie and I know you highly value the opinion of Representative Paul but in my opinion, on this issue, you are both wrong.

Excuse me, but the tactic I'm using is yours.

You don't want Congress to determine what the money they budget will be spent on. I don't understand how that can be called a budget at all. I want them to discuss and debate what and where the funds will be spent. I don't want appointed bureaucrats making those decisions.

So how should Congress decide how much money a given department or agency will receive?

Stephanie wrote:Excuse me, but the tactic I'm using is yours.

You don't want Congress to determine what the money they budget will be spent on. I don't understand how that can be called a budget at all. I want them to discuss and debate what and where the funds will be spent. I don't want appointed bureaucrats making those decisions.

If you want them to discuss and debate then you oppose earmarks which require no discussion or debate. It is mandating where money will be spent AFTER a bill is approved.

OC's example clarifies exactly why bureaucrats, the leaders being approved by Congress or elected by citizens, should be making those decisions.

As for Transparency, you claim Paul has it but how do we know his wife's cousin's two kids aren't receiving any of the ~15 million dollars Paul targeted toward the Shrimp Industry or that a college roommate isn't receiving grant money under the study of vanadium or that there are no Presidential campaign contributions as a result of $400 million dollars of earmarks Rep Paul has doled out?

I am curious though. I'm wondering, have you ever criticized Bob Byrd, Dick Murtha or Alan Mollohan for their actions?

As I said earlier, on this one, I sincerely believe both you and Representative Paul are wrong.

Stephanie wrote:So how should Congress decide how much money a given department or agency will receive?

Through a budgetary process justified by historical spending supplemented with proof for the need of dollars spent.

It's a very long and complicated process that begins with ground level agencies submitting budget request to superiors that are signed off on and then moved up the ladder and combined with other budgets until they get to the top of the organization at which time that person submits the budget to the proper congressional committee, who would audit the budget and then either approve, reject or request an amendment of the submitted budget.

It's not easy and it is certainly not a quick process but when done properly, it works about as well as anything in our government does. And if nothing else, the long and arduous process could very well lead to elimination of many levels of government. If an agency can't get a budget completed, submitted and approved within a year then do we really need that agency?

Aaron wrote:So then you do believe 535 people can micro-manage a $14,000,000,000,000.00 budget and how every penny is spent?

Remember that it's not being spent one dollar at a time. Oversight of grant recipients could stand to be much better as well.

When you are dealing with projects from 10K to several million, 14 trillion isn't such the daunting figure you imagine. What we need is sanity in the process, and I can tell you now from three different experiences dealing with federal dollars (from the Depts of HHS, Commerce, and now Justice), such sanity is lacking.

It's 3.5 Trillion Mike. I qouted the deficit, not the budget.

And I'm sorry but if you think micro-managing this is not a daunting task given the partisan nature of our Congress, you should run for public office.

Either you do want discussion and debate or you do not, Aaron.

I have a question for you. State Senators Hall & Facemeyer attempted to discuss the possibility of obtaining federal funds for Rte 35 with Senators Byrd & Rockefeller. How would you expect them to obtain that money for that project without specifically earmarking funds for that particular project?

Right now earmarks are the only way to do this. Earmarks are the only way a member of Congress has to target funds for specific projects or programs that are important to the folks back home.

What I favor is the individual committees and subcommittees to review the specifics of the departments and agencies they oversee. It's their job. They should not be taxing us to write blank checks.

Stephanie wrote:Either you do want discussion and debate or you do not, Aaron.

I have a question for you. State Senators Hall & Facemeyer attempted to discuss the possibility of obtaining federal funds for Rte 35 with Senators Byrd & Rockefeller. How would you expect them to obtain that money for that project without specifically earmarking funds for that particular project?

Right now earmarks are the only way to do this. Earmarks are the only way a member of Congress has to target funds for specific projects or programs that are important to the folks back home.

What I favor is the individual committees and subcommittees to review the specifics of the departments and agencies they oversee. It's their job. They should not be taxing us to write blank checks.

There's not much to debate. You've got your mind made up that Paul is right and I don't believe he is. I kept asking you yesterday about Congress micro-managing because I thought seeing how foolish it is to expect 535 people to manage such an endeavor would bring you to your senses and then I saw you had already answered the question.

We've both said what we would like to see happen but we both know that's not going to fly so it gets down to one of us changing our minds. I'll read anything you are willing to show me but honestly, I don't think there is much that will get me to change my mind as I've read a great deal on the subject already.

The thing is, I don't think you're willing to change yours because it involves Representative Paul. I say that because OC made a very valid point about local bureaucrats spending money yet after his post, you claim Paul is still right and Paul thinks Congress should be earmarking every dollar.

As you've pointed out, earmarks do not increase spending as the money is already been appropriated, the member just dictates where it goes after the bill is approved. Perhaps some is debated in sub-committed but by and large, the vst majority is not debated and discussed before the bill is drafted as Representative Paul led others to believe in his interview with Neil Caveuto. Unless you are gullible enough to believe Paul discussed all he earmarked. I won't claim a dollar figure because I've seen as little as $73M and as high as $450M.

Route 35 is the perfect example for the elimination of earmarks. Our representatives have earmarked about a trillion dollars of federal highway dollars be spent in WV on the King Coal Highway, I-74, the Fairmont connection and corridor H. Were those funds NOT earmarked, tolls would have never came about as the WV legislature could have simply diverted money from 3 roads to nowhere or a connection that saves 5-10 miles and completed a much needed project.

We have earmarks to thank for the toll road. I would still prefer the elimination of earmarks and allow the WV legislature determine where to spend our highway dollars but that's not going to happen.

If in the future, Sen Rockefeller or Sen Manchin attempt to obtain funding, I would hope they would debate the issue and put it for a vote and not earmark the money as unlike buses for Houston or a study of wild fish, it is a project worthy of federal dollars.

You're right, you're not going to change my mind. I think I have to take some time and study the specifics of earmarks again. It's been quite a while and while I know you think I changed my mind simply because Ron Paul says so, I don't think that's the case at all. He was unable to change my mind about the income tax. What he was able to do was make me take the time and effort required to research and understand the Fair Tax.

Now that I understand the Fair Tax I favor it. I must be really slow because it took a long time for me to understand how and why it will work.

Stephanie wrote:Either you do want discussion and debate or you do not, Aaron.

Stephanie wrote:You're right, you're not going to change my mind.

I don't know about your earlier comment Stephanie. I'm the one that has continued to discuss and even debate, without attempting to put words in your mouth over the past couple of days. I think I've adequately defended my positon and countered all points you've tried to make so it seems to me that it's you're the one unwilling to discuss or debate the topic, not me.

Stephanie wrote:I think I have to take some time and study the specifics of earmarks again. It's been quite a while and while I know you think I changed my mind simply because Ron Paul says so, I don't think that's the case at all.

I assumed it was Paul because for the life of me, after seeing the pork of the Bob Byrd's and Ted Stevens' of the Senate or the Alan Mollohan's or Jack Murtha's of the House, I hardly see how anyone could side with an earmark unless they believe in big government fraud and waste.

To clarify though your earlier question, it is my contention that the only reason the state is going to toll Route 35 is because of earmarks by Congressional representatives who are not familiar with what is needed in the state. That is the only logical reason for them targeting trillions of dollars to roads that lead to nowhere instead of allowing those who are trained and hired to make these decisions, those you call then beuacrats.

I realise you don't get out much but if you really want to study earmarks and have a bit of spare time, go to Chapmanville and take Route 10 to Man or Go to Elkins and take Corridor H and see where our highway dollars are being spent by our Congressional Representatives.

And if you can't go to Google maps and pull up Man, WV and look at it from a satellite image. What you will see is a 4-lane highway that springs up in the middle of nowhere goes a mile or so to the middle of nowhere.

Or look at the Corridor H map, understand that the goal was to get a direct route from Elkins to I-81 and tell me what you see. Below is a webpage.

Corridor H

Stephanie wrote:He was unable to change my mind about the income tax. What he was able to do was make me take the time and effort required to research and understand the Fair Tax.

Now that I understand the Fair Tax I favor it. I must be really slow because it took a long time for me to understand how and why it will work.

I would agree but that's a topic for another thread. Lets not cloudy earmarks with the Fair Tax.