0 votes

GOP Threatens To Remove Ron Paul From All Committee Assignments

By: David Dayen | FireDog Lake
Thursday April 1, 2010 1:22 pm

I would love to see the Republican Party try to remove the progenitor of the Tea Party movement from all his committees. They should really take a stand and do that, it’ll do wonders for the 2010 elections.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana and Ron Paul of Texas have joined Rep. Don Young (AK) in requesting earmarks for the 2011 fiscal year, despite a House Republican caucus vote this month to institute a moratorium on earmarks for one year.

From FireDog Lake

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron's 2009 earmarks

Ron's earmarks for 2009

Looking at Ron's 2009 requested earmarks, the most striking thing is that these are pretty standard porkfare. In order to get them passed, Ron votes for other Congress members' earmarks and they, in turn, vote for his. Then, Ron votes against the final bills, but they pass anyway. And as the earmark pyramid grows, appropriation bills expand to accomodate them.

Please contact Ron and let him know that, as a supporter, you respectfully request he start voting against earmarks. See link at end of this blog post:

Here's the 2009 earmarks:

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science:
• $250,000 for Galveston Economic Development Partnership, for Galveston Center for Business and Technology Development to help spin off private investment at National Lab of the University of Texas Medical Branch
• $500,000 for City of Bay City for NuBlac Rehab Center (youth rehabilitation)

Subcommittee on Defense:
• $3.5 million for study of health risks of exposure to vanadium

Subcommittee on Military Construction:
• $2 million for City of Bay City for NuBlac Rehab Center (serving minority veterans)

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
• $41.073 million for Army Corps of Engineers to deepen and widen Texas City Channel
• $21.6 million for Army Corps of Engineers to dredge and reconfigure jetties at mouth of Colorado River
• $7.02 million for Army Corps of Engineers to dredge Freeport Harbor
• $16.021 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Galveston Harbor
• $1 million for Army Corps of Engineers for construction at Cedar Bayou
• $3.297 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Texas City Channel
• $200,000 for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Cedar Bayou
• $13.038 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Matagorda Ship Channel
• $42.018 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Gulf Intercoastal Waterway
• $3.026 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain channel to Victoria
• $600,000 for Army Corps of Engineers for feasibility study for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay
• $400,000 for Army Corps of Engineers for feasibility study for Feeport Harbor
• $100,000 for Army Corps of Engineers for feasibility study for Lower Guadalupe River Basin
• $400,000 for Army Corps of Engineers for preliminary engineering and design study at Freeport Harbor.
• $21.7 million for Army Corps of Engineers for construction at Houston Galveston Navigation Channel
• $2.165 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Trinity River
• $6.979 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Wallisville Lake
• $1.3 million for Army Corps of Engineers to study flooding around Colorado River
• $11 million for Army Corps of Engineers for construction at Wharton and Onion Creek
• $3.026 million for Army Corps of Engineers for Chocolate Bayou
• $533,000 for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain channel to Port Bolivar
• $41.623 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Houston Ship Channel
• $1.01 million for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Double Bayou
• $3 million for Army Corps of Engineers for construction at Clear Creek
• $500,000 for Army Corps of Engineers to maintain Port Palacios
• $100,000 for Army Corps of Engineers to study sand placement near Brazoria County shoreline

Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment:
• $5 million for Fort Bend County for City of Kendleton water and sewer improvements

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $10 million for Coast Guard to improve Galveston Rail Causeway
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

Subcommittee on Transportation:
• $1.96 million to replace buses in and around Victoria
• $2 million to renovate transit maintenance facility in Galveston
• $5 million to reconfigure Texas Clipper training ship
• $25,000 to install security cameras at Fox Run Apartments in Victoria
• $2 million to beautify Galveston Seawall and support Transit Access Program in Galveston
• $3.6 million to construct inter-modal transit facility in Victoria
• $3.5 million for analysis of commuter rail alternatives in Galveston
• $10.3 million for City of Bay City for NuBlac Youth/Community Center
• $2.2 million for City of Bay City for improvements to electrical wiring in low and moderate income housing

Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education:
• $90,000 for Victoria Chamber of Commerce for business/career-related education for youth
• $248,942 for UTMB for employee wellness program for small businesses
• $1.748 million for University of Houston-Victoria for DNA testing and genetic diagnostic lab
• $300,000 for Bay City MEHOP for fund reinstatement of mobile unit
• $200,000 for Bay City MEHOP to recruit nurse practitioner
• $1.92 million for UTMB to study muscle mass loss in aging vs. microgravity (NASA related) at International Space Station National Lab
• $750,000 for Houston Memorial Hermann HealthCare system for Life Flight operations center
• $26 million for Washington, D.C. "Reading is Fundamental" program
• $10 million for Boston, Mass., "Reach Out and Read" national center

What would happen if ...

every congressman put in earmarks and voted against these types of bills as Ron Paul does?

He should designate all the earmark funding

for taxpayer redistribution.

Defend Liberty!


Account for less than 1% of federal spending. The list above may seem like a lot of money, but it is a drop in the bucket. The whole issue is a red herring to try to make the GOP look fiscally conservative.

Everything you say here is true, but...

There is no doubt that run-of-the-mill Republican lawmakers are using this earmark crusade as cover for their general big-spending habits. I see this comment made over and over here and everyone who says it is correct. Earmarks are only a small amount of federal spending. Yes, yes, yes.


The fact is that we should be opposed to wasteful and unconstitutional spending in proposals, earmarks, committees, bills and amendments. We should be for limited constitutional government ALL THE TIME.

I support Ron because he is right about so much, but he is wrong on this and most people here know this in their hearts.

You cannot change the system from within

I agree. Ron plays a typical role as Congressman when it comes to earmarks. Of course, he is not the president, nor is he a full time figurehead for liberty and fighter for smaller government. He remains a politician and continues to play within that realm. If he were to renounce his Congressman's position and devote his time 24/7 to what I think most of us want him to be, then we'd be singing a different tune. One cannot change the system from within, we've seen that over and over again.

How dumb are you?

Do you not understand that if the money isn't appropriated it goes to the general fund? How dumb are you as to not understand that earmarks do NOT increase the size of the budget for it? Dr. Paul votes AGAINST the spending bills. When Republicans rally to vote AGAINST the damned spending bills as opposed to approving all the spending the Democrats want to do, then I'll call Ron Paul and ask him to not support earmarks.

In essence, Republicans that are voting for the spending bills are APPROVING the Democrat spending plans, because they aren't putting earmarks in. Quit worrying about the damned earmarks and start worrying about the spending bill.

Eric Hoffer

Earmarks do expand spending


It is wrong to assume that the size of the spending bill is fixed and earmarks simply change how the spending is divvied up. This ignores the fact that budgeting is not a onetime event but an annual *process.* There are numerous incentives for spending on every appropriation to keep getting bigger one year to the next. Earmarks are one of these.

Earmarks are important to congressmen because important interests in their districts request them. In order to get them passed, the congressman votes for other Congress members' earmarks and they, in turn, vote for his. Because this system works for them, Congress members continue to ask for more and more earmarks.

As the earmark pyramid grows, appropriation bills EXPAND TO ACCOMMODATE THEM. Pork begets pork and from one year to the next budgets expand.

You are correct faux fiscal conservatives use earmarks as a show to cover their own spending. That hardly excuses voting for earmarks.


Michael Nystrom's picture

And he voted against all the bills

that contained the spending requests.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Earmarks are Ron's Achilles Heel

This is sad. Ron is dead wrong about earmarks. In a sense he has handed the establishment this weapon to bludgeon him with. Ron should not be facilitating unconstitional pork barrel spending. The fact he votes against the ultimate bill is good, but not good enough. Earmarks require specific requests by congressmen and Ron DOES request them.

Yes, earmarks are a small part of overall spending and, yes, faux fiscal conservatives use their newfound objections to earmarks as a cover for spending. Of course they do. But none of this excuses the fact that Ron specifically requests earmarks for unconstitutional spending and hence facilitates its passage.

I think you've fallen into the tv pundit word trap

You would rather the executive branch make all spending decisions? The money shouldn't be spent in such volume in the first place, which is why Dr Paul votes against it, but it's going to be spent one way or the other. Requesting earmarks is the only way to insert at least a smidgeon of accountability. The tv guys would much rather you not understand this though--and it seems to have worked.

No, we need MORE earmarks, not fewer.

ALL spending should be designated.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

The income tax is unconstitutional as well.

Glad he's trying to get some of his district's stolen funds back.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!


You are ok with your representative allowing your tax money to be spent on someone else while your roads crumble? Or on some other country?

There is no doubt the budgetary process is sick. However, it is the one place Congress steps up to its duty to manage some part of the spending.

I suppose it is better to leave the White House to act like FDR and give your wealth to cronies and to states where it benefits him politically. Let's give everyone free energy like the TVA does, run busines out of your state, and make you pay for it because you are against Congress managing the budget.

Ron's earmarks not chosen by Ron...

The sad truth is Ron does not limit the earmarks he requests to spending he supports or would even vote for on a legit up-or-down vote. If he were originating the earmarks himself to address specific needs he sees in Texas it would add credibility to his position even among opponents of earmarking like me. However, he simply passes along earmark requests from special interests in his district and then votes no on the ultimate bill.


I too will opt out of the republican party--for good.

There is only a handful of them I'd vote for anyway...

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Joe Kennedy etc and to get our democratic governer OUT (Gregoire-WA).

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Confronting the Bully

Why jump ship when the party is just getting started? All over the country the local GOP is being transformed by the liberty movement. The national leadership has less control over Republican Party than the grassroots.

The liberty movement makes more of an impact WITHIN the Republican Party than outside of it. That is why Dr. Paul has always been elected as a Republican. Walking off of the playing field is not a victory. Our progressive leaning friends should do the same within the Democratic Party. That is how the current establishment took power, that is how the people will get it back short of a complete upheaval and social unrest.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

I already did..the last straw

I already did..the last straw finally fell..
months ago..

Same thing that happened to

Same thing that happened to me. It is a shame there are so many ignorant people that don't understand what earmarks really are and will use this issue as an attack against the only person that is truly representing their freedom and liberty.

Kinda weird..the TPM site

Kinda weird..the TPM site that this links to has a bunch of anti-RP comments, but wd not let me sign up to post anything..LOL



For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.


... ;D

RON2012PAUL...The r3VOLution continues...
"I always win"
+GOLD and SILVER are money+

Found this comment on another thread...

to many people here still don’t understand what an earmark is so let me explain so even a moron can get it.

Let’s say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom’s basement playing some D&D. It’s getting late, and everyone is getting hungry. Ronnie says he doesn’t want to get dinner, since he brought a hoagie, but everyone else wants to order pizza. Ron is outvoted and they decide to order pizza.
When it comes time to order, the gang collects they money from everyone, including Ron. Ron says he brought food, so he didn’t think he should pay. Tough luck, Ron… we all voted, and you’re paying. “Fine,” says Ron, “But I want a white pizza with onions.”
“Wait, you said you didn’t want pizza! Are you going to be having pizza with us now? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?”
“Well, I voted to not get pizza, but since you already have my money, and there’s nothing I can do about that, I might as well state my preference for the pizza that comes. It’s the only way I’m going to get the best use out of the money I’ve lost. I’d much rather keep the money and not have the pizza, but to avoid the pizza out of principle is simply cheating myself.”

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

reedr3v's picture

Nice metaphor


Why are some of Ron's buddies now opting out from pizza?

They chipped in money, too, and now they are not ordering?

How much money will not be earmarked by Republicans? Those that get to spend that budgeted but not earmarked money will be very happy.

Could we be talking about a multi-billion dollar gift card from the Republicans to the Democratic Executive Branch?

I wonder how many taxpayers would consider their money well spend.

Free includes debt-free!

Redstate is asking: "is Ron Paul right on earmarks?" I can't pos

post comments yet although I signed up to try. Comment here: http://www.redstate.com/jsanzone/2010/04/02/is-ron-paul-righ...

My comment is,

"He does say the system is broken, you aren't listening. and that is WHY Ron Paul votes against the spending. He doesn't just vote against the spending when he has 'earmarks' in the bill. He is against the spending. But knowing, after 21+ years in office, that it is likely to go through a good percentage of the time even though he votes against it, he thinks his constituents shouldn't just pay their share for it, but should get their share from it. It is like medicare. People may think folks should never have been forced to pay into it and be made dependent on it, but once they HAVE paid for it, it is owed to them. Taking the benefit you paid for doesn't make you a hypocrite. His constituents, like it or not, are paying for the spending and until he can stop it, he tries to get it back. But he ALSO does try to STOP it by voting against the bill altogether, unlike most.

This is not a 'Ron Paul' point, but you should know why he will lose his committee seats if he has to rather than back down on it: it is the biggest 'separation of powers issue' in the Constitution other than having Congress, not the executive, declare war (are we seeing a pattern in his positions here, yet?)

Jeffersonians believe in a federation of states and a limited power central government with a limited power executive, with Congress holding the power of the purse. Between the federal reserve acting behind closed doors and blank check funding to the executive office for the executive to dole out behind closed doors, we have almost destroyed the separation of powers fought for in the Magna Carta and adopted by our founding fathers. Those who want a line item veto want an all powerful executive at the expense of checks and balances. Obviously, a line item veto sounds more attractive to the party in power -- now some Dems are saying it would be a great idea, but remember how they felt if Bush were to have it? NO one person should have that power under our Constitution.

I don't know if the GOP will really try to enforce this with committee seat loss, because they know Ron Paul won't budge and many will be furious about it. The GOP has not said anything about committee seats, or enforcement of a no earmark ban against those like Ron Paul who never signed up for it (most signed up for it.) It is the leftist papers saying that, and they may just be trying to stir up division in the party before the midterms.

But earmarks merely designate where part of a blank check to the executive goes, they don't add spending to the bill. Ron Paul believes that for transparency and separation of powers, Congress should designate, or earmark, where ALL spending goes. Yet he is against unconstitutional spending of all sorts, and will vote against every bill that has it, when the bill comes up to vote.

He is the most consistent Congressman on the Hill, like him, or don't."

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul


BEHNER needs to take a leap. HE's the one who voted for the Banking Bailout, the creep. HE's the one who doesn't want transparency with the Federal Reserve! Palease.

As far as the earmarks, Ron Paul ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THOSE BILLS. He just doesn't want them passed unless he's earmarked as much as he can. It makes sense to me.

However, I'm sure he'd stop, IF HE KNEW FOR SURE THE DEMOCRATS wouldn't put any in. Note that Behner is just referring to Republicans. All well and good, but that's not enough. Sorry, guy!


You wrote:
"As far as the earmarks, Ron Paul ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THOSE BILLS. He just doesn't want them passed unless he's earmarked as much as he can. It makes sense to me."

Maybe you misspoke. This implies that Dr. Paul wants the bills passed as long as he has earmarked them.

This is not my understanding of his earmarks. He says he sees himself as the conduit throughwhich his constituents can request funds. He fullfills his obligation by including their requests, but he argues against and votes against the bills because that fullfills his oath of office.

I will change my party registration

from Republican to Independent if they do this to the good Doctor. Ron Paul is the genesis of the modern day Tea Party movement --------------- not the Republican Party. I stopped giving money to those guys years ago, and now Cheney backs Trey Grayson against Rand Paul. Grayson is only 37 years old and he is on his second term as a Secretary of State, talk about a career politician. Grayson also claims to be a conservative; however, he saw fit to campaign for and to vote for Clinton, that really shows good judgement -------------------- and now he claims to be a conservative, lol. Go ahead, make my day and try to shove amnesty down our throats.

Changed to Independent after

Changed to Independent after the charade of the last election. In your state you may have to temporarily change registration just to be able to vote in your primary.