Congressman Ron Paul
U.S.
House of
Representatives
April 9, 2008
2008 Ron Paul 23:1
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:2
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:3
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:4
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:5
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:6
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.
2008 Ron Paul 23:7
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.