Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Beware the Earmarks Battle (and Beyond)

James Ostrowski writes:
The war against earmarks is fun to watch. The newbies in the tea party movement are so excited they discovered the war against big government two years ago that they fail to realize it’s been going on for decades, even centuries. God forbid they listen to the folks who have been in the trenches for years. They apparently think that by banning earmarks, they will end pork barrel spending. No, they will, as Ron Paul has pointed out many times, simply allow the President to pick the pork projects. Of course, Congress will still be involved in this selection process but now there will be no record of it. It will all be done on a wink and a nod behind closed doors.

And Lew Rockwell adds:
Jim, as you note, the anti-earmarks issue is a fraud. It’s a neocon trick, pushed by the Club for Growth and similar groups. It’s a way for the neocons to seem to be against spending while not actually being against it, and it’s a way to strengthen the presidential dictatorship against the legislature. Once again, earmarks are not spending; they allocate spending, to local pork rather than presidential pork. Ron Paul, of course, does it right. He is willing, as a representative, to request earmarks in appropriations for his constituents’ local projects, but votes against the spending itself.
Rockwell then warns:
Another neocon phony-baloney reform is on its way too, if Paul Ryan, new chairman of the budget committee, gets his way. He wants a line-item veto. This again transfers power to the dictatorial executive–already roaming the world like a lion, seeking whom it may devour. Bush and Obama, etc.–indeed, all US presidents–would use such a power not to save money (as if!), but to veto projects the military-industrial complex or Wall Street opposes. It would also allow the executive to threaten any senator of congressman personally, on local spending, in order to get his vote for a war or some other larger criminal scheme.

1 comment:

  1. Just curious: how does Ron Paul get earmarks in the first place when everyone knows he will be voting against the spending anyway?