Posted on 10/01/2011 3:19:23 PM PDT by mnehring
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.
For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks.
Paul’s largest request in 2010 was $51.5 million in federal money to be spent on “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas.” He requested another $50 million to be directed to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and $46 million for deepening the Texas City channel. The majority of Paul’s requests were for projects related to various ports and channels, though other sectors of his district also received attention, such as $20 million for a hospital in Chambers County. Even smaller projects received attention from the libertarian representative, such as $2.5 million requested “to redevelop historic downtown area and to purchase trash cans, bike racks and decorative street lighting” in Baytown.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonindependent.com ...
What a swell guy.
Can’t be true.
/sarc
“If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.”
More to the point, earmarks direct the money. If legislators don’t direct the money then the executive branch directs it. Earmarks in and of themselves aren’t adding to the total, they’re just divvying it and specifying where it goes.
There is no money. There is only debt.
You act as if he lined his own pockets with the money.
The earmarks were appropriate and reasonable for the industries and problems of his district. The people of his district (and all of Texas) pay far more taxes than they get back from the federal government. There is nothing wrong with a congressman trying to see that the people of his district get at least a portion of their fair share of the money they paid in.
SHRIMP alert.
I am shocked I tell you. Shocked!
So, let’s see, “libertarian” means lots of taxpayer money for my district, none for anyone else’s, and oh!!! “End the fed.” And don’t kill no terrorists. And.....smoking some crazy herb.
Really. Will any Republicans use this earmark info vs. RuPaul in the next debate? And what is he doing wearing the Republican label anyway, hmmm??
Ron knows how to bring home the bacon.
Both parts of Paul's argument (and he is the only one who is dumb enough to say this) are wrong and have been shot down many times before. First of all, government departmental budgets operate on a baseline system. If money isn't spent, it isn't allocated on the next year's budgets are reduced by the amount not spent, thus reducing the overall baseline. Earmarking the budget doesn't 'go to the executive branch' if it isn't spent- the executive branch has nothing to do with unspent budget items. They have their own budgetary item called the Presidential Appropriation. With baseline accounting, earmarking the budget keeps the spending level increasing.
In addition, Earmarking has to be the most unconstitutional way to spend money. It is allocation without representation. These budget items aren't voted on, they are simply deemed as part of the whole. They are also not returning the money to the taxpayer- this is more redistributive social engineering- where you get money IF you do something for the requester, be it a trolly, hospital wing, etc.
Then he should author a bill for these specific 'industries or problems', not slip them in as unconstitutional earmarks. They are allocation without representation.
I’ll file that under ‘Distinction without a difference’ as far as this conversation goes. Debt is merely a category of money.
Then he goes on the stump yapping what a fiscal Conservative he is.
The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
He lined his own pockets with votes.
? And what is he doing wearing the Republican label anyway, hmmm??
Cross dresser. :-)
That doesn’t mean, as Paul claims, that the President gets to spend any money not spent or earmarked. What that means is they are not part of the bill voted on and signed into law by the President. That is why it ‘bypasses’ the Executive Branch’s ability to manage aspects. Unlike budget bills that they contribute to creating and writing for Congress to draft the final part and vote on, these aren’t voted on directly by Congress.
(in layman’s terms, the Executive Branch submits a requested budget each year. Congress uses that as a guide and drafts the budget based on that (or not if they choose so, there is no rule they have to). Congress passes, the Senate passes, and the President signs. Earmarks bypass all that scrutiny and votes and are just dumped in as addendum to bills).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.