| Quote: | |  | |
| There'd be more earmarks | |
| | |
I think it merits pointing out that "earmarks" – by definition – are not increases in either the budget or spending, as is popularly assumed.
An "earmark" is the directed application of specific funds to a specific purpose from out of a budget total that has already been established. Congressman Paul advocates "earmarks" precisely because without them, unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats often spend budget funds on whatever they want (e.g., expanding, empowering, or enriching whichever bureaucracy they're entrenched in), rather than what will truly benefit the public.
Using "earmarks," Congress maintains at least some control over how the plethora of bloated federal government agencies and departments spend the funds already alloted to them in the budget.