reply to post by showintail
An Appropriation Bill is authorization from Congress for the government to spend money on discretionary programs. They are appropriating the funds. An
earmark (or 500 earmarks) is/are written into the bill to designate where specifically those funds will go. Congress might appropriate a specific
amount of money for discretionary funds - All an earmark is is language in the bill designating where, specifically, those funds should go.
If the bill passes in the house it still has to go through the Senate, where it could be altered and amended or agreed upon fully. The Senate might
also draft their own bill entirely, and attempt to merge it with the House bill.
The so called GOP moratorium on earmarks is nothing but political games. Earmarks aren't inherently the bad word we're all supposed to think they are,
they are merely Congress specifically appropriating funds.
Ron Paul I believe has never voted to appropriate funds for discretionary spending.. So when he adds earmarks and then votes against a bill, he is
essentially hedging his bets and making sure should the bill pass, despite the fact that he doesn't believe it should on principal, those funds will
be reserved in the legislation for uses that the bill was originally designed for.
ETA: So Ron Paul adds earmarks to a bill to ensure money is being spent appropriately, then he votes against spending that federal money AT ALL. This
OP and the articles provided are trying to spin this process so Ron Paul looks like a hypocrite and they do a good job of it considering most people
are not familiar with this process. These actions by Ron Paul align 100% with who he is and what he stands for.
edit on 23-7-2011 by Backslider because: (no reason given)
