Posted on 12/16/2010 8:29:09 AM PST by LSUfan
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.
While Paul requested these earmarks, he can still claim to have voted against the spending. Here’s how he defended his earmarking habit when he was challenged during a Fox News interview in 2009:
I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
Taxpayers for Common Sense released a database Tuesday of all the earmarks requested by members of Congress for Fiscal Year 2011. Over $130 billion was requested across 39,294 earmarks. With most House Republicans abstaining from the process, the majority of those requests came from Congressional Democrats. House Democrats requested over $51 billion, outpaced by Senate Democrats with just under $55 billion. On the other hand Senate Republicans only asked for $22 billion, with the four House Republicans accounting for a little over $1 billion in earmark requests. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu had the highest request total for the year at around $4.5 billion.
From 2008-2010, the average Texas congressman brought back $74 million in earmarks, according to an analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, as the Texas Independent previously reported. In those three years, Paul sponsored/co-sponsored 45 successful earmarks totaling nearly $120 million. That was the sixth-greatest total among U.S. House members from Texas.
Of the five U.S. House members who brought home more total earmarked money than Paul, three were defeated in the November elections — Democratic U.S. Reps. Chet Edwards, Solomon Ortiz and Ciro Rodriguez (who all have large military installations in or near their districts.)
Where is the “I am shocked” guy?
Top two earmarks sound modest and legit on the face of it. Shipping channel and a naval training ship.
Quick math ...
500 politicians asked for the same amount, rounded upwards ...
160
x80
$13 billion.
I could live with more Ron Pauls.
wow...pork-o-rama !
We had a guy named Chris Peden run against Paul recently. Peden would have been much more effective than Paul has ever been.
With all that aside the real test of Ron Paul will come when the next Congress comes in. If Paul indeed gets to directly handle Federal Reserve issues we wil see if all his talk for all those years was just BS or if he really has some balls.
the repubs need to beef up the earmarks to extreme amounts and vote against the bill... and if it passes, let the left scream about the ronald reagan addition to mount rushmore, the sara palin library for political correctness in alaska and the dick cheney hunting club experience for reporters of the new york times.
if the dems want to pass it and obama to sign it... make it hurt financially as well.
teeman
The media and the Left (same thing, I know) ridiculed President Reagan's economic policies as "Trickle Down Economics".
Seems to me that giving all your money (in taxes) to the Federal Government and then hoping your Congressman can get some of it back for you is the ULTIMATE in trickle down economics.
If you read his explanation and think about it for a while, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have.
Our Republic is broken in a real and powerful way. I'm beginning to realize we no longer live in a constitutional republic.
Our congress is now ignoring the law of the land and is acting in it's own way and best interest.
SCOTUS has no will to protect us and is only interested in legal theory and writing opinions.
I believe the only that can save our country are the states that take the 10th amendment seriously.
Say what you want but you can't call him a hypocrite on the issue.
Every Congressmen who stayed too long in Congress must think about how he will make a living when he leaves via retirement or no being re elected. Cannot go back to your own vocation that you have been away from over 10 plus years while in Congress. Basically you have no marketable skills unless you become a lobbyist. Problem is everyone wants to be a lobbyists. You better be in with corporate America. Another after Congress job is a partnership in a prestigious law firm who will use your name, a corporate board that meets 4 weeks per year at nice locations (60K salary, land four boards and you make good money), paid member in a lucrative think tank or investment firm funded by corporate America, organized movement (Sierra Club) or foreign nations ala Saudi Arabia/ME (one day China will set one up to buy US Congressmen). Guess what to curry access you better start doing favors like earmarks and voting patterns. That is the trap of no term limits. That is how newly elected crusaders end up as brought for Congressmen. Ross Perot once quoted that the US government is the best government money can buy.
ping
mr paul is easy to refute. simple logic known to my mom suffices:
“two wrongs cannot make a right.”
similarly for 3 wrongs, 4 wrongs, ... , a billion wrongs, a trillion wrongs, ... , n wrongs, or an infinite number of wrongs NEVER make a right.
mr paul is easy to refute. simple logic known to my mom suffices:
“two wrongs cannot make a right.”
similarly for 3 wrongs, 4 wrongs, ... , a billion wrongs, a trillion wrongs, ... , n wrongs, or an infinite number of wrongs NEVER make a right.
This was done way before the last few days....before the election.
I am sick of Obamamedia propaganda. Democrats love to tear down. They go down, they tear down Republicans on the way...
Why times 80?
Should that not be $160 million times 435?
$70 Billion
- - - - -
Of course for the 2010 budget it was $398,460,640 by Ron Paul.
$400 Million x 435 = $174 Billion. Does that really sound good to you?
“Someone needs to tell Ron Paul that Earmarks are not in the constitution.”
Actually it is,...under Article 1, section 8. Doesn’t matter what you call it terminologically, semantically, or philosophically.
Approving things that cost money is the responsibility of Congress. Bottom line is, every funding approval has to be voted upon. Those that allowed themselves to fall out of political power have to quit whining and be a little more responsive to those they govern.
Those that are for earmarks, ensure that specific money goes to their specific projects/state, regardless of the president’s and his cabinet’s agenda. To do so means you have given power BACK to the president.
Those against earmarks believe their impact should not be automatically funded. These people believe regular, congressional oversight committees will address the funding questions.
Here is my question....why doesn’t Congress pass a law that states all congressional funding bills, aka Omnibus bills, require a minimum of one month review before being considered (in lieu of times of national disaster)? That way, all this last minute, just-wanna-get-home-for-christmas attitude will not prevail...
I don’t get it. If Paul is such a Libertarian why would he be asking for government funds?
Says it all, except for the fact that his wild-eyed assertions, such as 'truther-ism,' always benefit the Left. So, he hasn't been totally ineffective..
Your typically libertarian dunce cap suits you well.
Actually, what isn't in the Constitution is giving open-ended check to the executive departments to spend as they see fit to further a bureaucratic agenda.
All money should be earmarked by Congress. Paul's earmarks should be judged on the basis of whether or not what he has earmarked the money for is an enumerated power under the Constitution.
Paul once again makes clear what his supporters will not see: He is just another Washington game player.
Shrimp marketing subsidies away!
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.