Ron Paul and earmarks

This is very disappointing. Don Young voted for the war! Can this endorsement really be because of the earmarks? That is too horrid to believe. What's the real story? - pb

+++++

Mon Aug 25, 6:54 PM ET

MANASSAS, Va., Aug. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- By endorsing Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) for reelection over his principled conservative challenger, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has put "pork ahead of principle," Richard A. Viguerie said.

Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said the endorsement is "completely inconsistent with everything Congressman Paul has said that he stands for. But, unfortunately, it is consistent with his record of pork-barrel spending for the folks back home in his district."

Viguerie noted that, according to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function."

(A list of Congressman Paul's earmark requests for Fiscal 2009 has been posted at http://blogs.chron.com/tx... .)

Young is extremely influential on congressional pork. He is the 7th most senior member of the House and the 3rd most senior Republican, and chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 2001 until the Democratic takeover in 2007. He is currently the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Paul is supporting Young against Sean Parnell, whom Viguerie called "a principled conservative reformer who will fight the 'culture of corruption' in Washington."

In contrast, "Young represents the system of earmarking and pork-barrel spending that works hand-in-glove with Big Government against the interests of the people of Alaska and the entire nation."

Young, who is under federal investigation for illegal gratuities and unreported gifts, is "a world-class porker, infamous for his Bridge to Nowhere and hundreds of millions in other earmarks," Viguerie said.

"I have been a strong supporter of Ron Paul for many years, including naming him one of the nation's up-and-coming leaders in a Conservative Digest magazine article I published almost 25 years ago," Viguerie said. "His overall record on other issues far outweighed his atrocious use of earmarks for his own district.

"However, his endorsement of Don Young is something no conservative or libertarian can excuse. I'm sure I join many fans of Ron Paul who are shocked and disappointed by this decision."

Ron Paul has disclosed his earmark requests for 2009. This is pretty standard fare. In order to get them passed, Ron will vote for other Congress members' earmarks and they, in turn, will 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:
http://www.rlc.org/2008/0...

Here's the 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

http://blogs.chron.com/tx...

It is a argument born out of the mind of a mad man. No matter what you bring to bear this pblumel will never stop in his quest to argue his point to the brink of a zealotry. Just a warning. I think he/it just wants attention. Carry on. I found through all his post his point is still worthless.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2007
Ron Paul, Earmarks, and the Fox News Attack Dogs
http://economicspolitics....
(for links to some referenced material, see original article)
I've just decided I'm voting for Ron Paul for president, even if I have to write him in. I've written about him here several times before, but the latest attack on him proves that the liberals and conservatives from the "establishment" are running more scared than ever. Ron Paul is gaining traction in the Presidential race, and so the attack dogs are out. And "conservative" ones at that!

Ron Paul reported recently that he requested about $400 million in pork spending in Congress for this year. He's the devil, right? He is the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth right? Not so fast. I don't think so. Let's look at some facts surrounding the issue, not just the once that Fox News wants you to know.

Try a Google search with the words "Ron Paul 400 million earmarks" (without the quotes), and you will find an interesting phenonenon. Brit Hume from Fox News reported Congressman Paul's declaration, and then hundreds of bloggers picked up on that one story. They are incensed! They are outraged! They are...well, not so fast.

Have you ever been a member of congress? Can you imagine that you would never request money to be allocated for anything? I always thought I wouldn't request unconstitutional things, but I don't know.

An earmark may or may not be pork. In other words, it may be something that the constitution actually allows, and then again it may not be.

Here are some quick facts about EarmarkGate:

It's not all for shrimp! Holy cow, what a sound bite society we live in!

Everyone requests earmarks. Except for apparently John McCain. You wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't request earmarks (i.e. helped determine what spending goes on in Congress, especially if you are in the House of Representatives.) I know my senators and congressman here in Utah are very proud of the earmarks they request, even though they are of the porkish variety.

Ron Paul is one of the few who has divulged his earmark requests. As of a couple weeks ago, very few members of congress had even responded to requests that they do so. Nearly a hundred have specifically said that they would not release that kind of information. And nearly 300 have not even responded to the requests. Barack Obama requested almost the same dollar amount in earmarks as Ron Paul, but nobody is dogpiling on him. Obama requested that money be allocated to ensure that Asian carp cannot enter the Great Lakes, while Ron Paul requested nurturing and protection of the US shrimp industry. Sounds pretty similar.

Here is a summary of Congressman Paul's earmarks. They include funding:

To allow the Food and Drug administration to do antibiotic testing of seafood
For research into Athsma
Several of which are for the Army Corps of Engineers to design for and protect various harbors, shorelines, ports, river deltas, ship channels, and bayous in the Galveston, Texas area
For cancer research
For $25,000 to fund a Children's Identification and Location Database
For the Texas maritime training program.
To fix bridges, state highways, and interstate freeways in Texas. Oh my gosh, you've got to be kidding me! ;-)
For the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program. Here's what that is... (Be careful, you might be offended...not.)
For Vanadium Safety Readiness
For the Nursing Education Doctoral Program, etc. at the University of Texas
Ah, here's the one we've all be hearing about--money to research shrimp fishing in the Gulf coast area. Wow, that's brazen!!! But it gets worse. The last one is...
Money for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to study Wild American Shrimp Marketing. Well, um, he should be impeached!!!
Many of these requests were made on behalf of the Texas government and the Texas Department of Transportation. Do you find anything on there that is particularly porkish? Not me really, except for maybe the trolley system in Galveston. If you'd like to see the entire list, click here.

Can you people please settle down a little bit? Is it worse for Ron Paul to have requested them than for anyone else? No. Especially that I can hardly find a page on here that is a pork-type earmark. And it turns out that the shrimp industry is largely in the public domain, and it makes sense to study it and protect it for the general welfare of America.

So Brit Hume of Fox News, would you like to apologize? I didn't think so. Because Ron Paul is not the establishment's man.

And they're scared crapless of him.

I know the issue also came up during the Meet the Press interview, when Tim Russert wanted to get a gotcha from Paul. There was a discussion on Fox with Ann Coulter, they were critical of Paul, but Coulter defended Paul, said his argumentation and action makes sense to her. I think one has to look at each and every vote, on the specifics.
Paul is against the "earmark system", but he understands that in this broken system he cannot let his district 14 - that is larger than a few states
- suffer. If he does not accept the money, the money will probably be used
for the war or some other earmark project. You need the president to veto it to really have an effect.

Also the pork barrel spending is only a small part of the total budget, so the savings with non such projects would not contribute to much savings< see Paul's "The Revolution". He also referred to the Iraq war as one big earmark, and this is much more.

Ultimately, as congressman he does have the responsibility to build briges etc. And remember with the hurricane - he is representing a coastal district - he needed some funding for his district.

Phil Blumel, it is strange to me that Paul has apparently endorsed Don Young, whereas Sean Parnell - that RLC endorsed - would be much closer to his position. Also, I do NOT see any endorsement of Don Young by his Liberty PAC, but I do see Scott Garrett as one of the congressmen he "endorses". I suppose he does not know Parnell. Maybe you and others can contact the Alaska meetup group to advise them to vote for Parnell, and not Young. OI could not verify this email by Paul as yet.

If congress allocates 100gazillion or whatever dollars for improvements in roads and bridges, the money will go somewhere. Ron Paul may not agree with the funding, and he knows that he can not stop it, so the best thing that he can do is to bring some of that money home to his constituents, and then vote against the bill, which will pass overwhelmingly due to the vast numbers of tax and spend neocons/liberals.

That is what is happening, it happens at the state level as well.

If your town doesn't fight for the money, then other towns/cities will get it.

That is a fact of life.

But Dr. Paul sees the error of this thinking, and votes against it on a moral level and earmarks it on a realistic level. Smart.

Fortunately, Ron in many quarters still retains the reputation he has earned as a fiscal conservative in spite of his lapse on earmarks.

For example, according to The Fairbanks Daily Miner, “Paul, the 72-year-old congressman from Texas whose maverick presidential bid drew wide support in Alaska, sent out a letter to his supporters here urging them to vote for [U.S. Rep. Don] Young.” As the paper notes, “Paul and Young are a bit of an odd couple. Paul is a fiscal conservative; Young believes in earmarking federal dollars for Alaska wherever possible. Paul opposes the Iraq war; Young supports it.”

Quite naturally, the reporter assumes Ron is voting AGAINST the earmarks.

Unfortunately, among those who specialize on spending and budget issues, Ron's earmark votes are well-known. This hurt him in the primaries when it came to light and economists and others who have respected Ron for years now take a slightly different view.

Worse, people who oppose him on other issues -- like the war -- try to tarnish him with the earmark issue. I think he is handing his enemies this issue on a silver platter.

Can we, as Ron supporters, respectfully ask him to vote against earmarks for spending he sees as unconstitutional? The link to contact him is in the original blog post:

http://www.rlc.org/2008/0...

P.S. As an amusing aside, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) requested an earmark for $34 million for the Alaska Native Education Equity program, and when Scott Garrett challenged Young's earmark, Rep. Young declared, "You want my money, my money!" An amendment to strip the earmark from the final bill failed, 74-352, as most politicians vote for all the other politician's earmarks expecting the others to return the favor. They do!

Actually, it can be.

Say the representative of San Francisco's district wants to (what was it?) install bunk beds in the bathrooms of the arts center in San Francisco.

Who gives the congress the right to tell those people that they can't use their money that way? (They elected that representative didn't they? And it's their money, isn't it?) Who gives the Club for Growth the right to tell those people they can't use their money that way?

Of course, the Club for Growth sees this as "waste" because they would rather see that money (which was confiscated from the folks around San Francisco) used by the executive branch to orchestrate a propaganda campaign to get provisions of NAFTA pushed through.

So you see, supporting all locally directed earmarks (in general principle) is actually a way of diverting funds away from a fascist totalitarian state. Sure, some people find this "odd." Especially, the ones who want that money for other purposes. You'll notice they also find Dr. Paul's votes against tort reform inexplicable. We can all agree that we are in a litigation-happy society, but we can't all agree that we are headed toward a corporate dictatorship...or maybe a socialist utopia, whoever wins.

So you see, I am not questioning your support for Dr. Paul. I am questioning your commitment to fight against corporatism. If you are against sending confiscated funds back to localities and effectively taking it out of federal control, where it will be put to more malignant uses, where do you want that money to be spent? So called "tort reform" so that corporations are beyond all accountability? Perhaps it should go to supporting NAFTA and CAFTA? Are you against limited liability for corporations? These are the kinds of questions which, if you start to ask them, indicate that Dr. Paul is right on this one as well. There is no grain of truth to the criticism. At least I don't see it.

To bring this back to my previous post (below), one must be very careful to consider what people are saying. The Club for Growth *says* that they are for reducing federal spending (just like their radio surrogates *say* that they are advocates for the individual). But these words are just a smoke screen. They are lying. They are all for federal spending if it goes toward their cherished corporate interests.

They do have a more legitimate complaint against Dr. Paul. His voting has been practically ineffective overall. This is not because he has voted incorrectly (as far as I can tell), but more because he is crushed by those who oppose what he stands for. (He is crushed by the corporate fascists and the socialists). His votes have been effective in one way. We have observed them. It is up to us turn the message of his votes and his presidential campaign into something practical. We may be small in number, and we may not know exactly the direction in which to go, but don't count us out just yet.

P.S. A similar battle exists among the religious people, the morally religious (who want to confiscate funds to impose their morality on everyone and have the federal government create a society in which they are comfortable) and the immorally religious (who want to confiscate funds to impose their immorality on everyone and have the federal government create a society in which they are comfortable).

Notice that there are a lot of corporatists and socialists, advocates of theocracy and advocates of secularism who support Dr. Paul (to one degree or another). It is one of our main tasks to get them to set these battles aside, because we are edging ever closer to having one of them achieve a sudden, absolute (and perhaps violent) victory, though I hope none of them take any hope from my saying so.

To me, and anyone else who isn't a McCain lemming, earmarks are a red herring.

What an earmark does is simply allocate certain money from a spending bill to specific projects. The bill does not increase by one dollar through an earmark.

Ron's point of view is his people are paying into the federal government...if he can't prevent them from being stolen from, the next best thing is to make sure they get something for their money.

It's very funny...that Ron probably requests and gets as many earmarks as any other congressmen...but he still votes no on the spending bill.

Ron has been very transparent, and has released every earmark request he's made in recent history.

It's not like Dr. Paul is selling his vote for the earmark...they know'll he'll vote no either way.

Oh...and they aren't tracking earmark votes...they're tracking earmark requests.

I think a lot of people are missing pblumel's point here.

Pblumel is NOT saying that Dr. Paul's record of voting for specific earmarks for his constituents is unconstitutional/evil/wrong/etc.
Pblumel is NOT saying that Dr. Paul's record of voting against the bills to allocate money for earmarks in general is hypocritical/wrong/unconstitutional/etc.

Pblumel IS saying that Dr. Paul's record of voting against specific amendments to bar funding for specific unconstitutional earmarks is questionable. Especially when the earmarks in question don't even apply to his own constituency.

I personally have mixed feelings on the issue. I understand the argument that certain earmarks can be considered unconstitutional. But I'd rather just give the money back to the people via lower taxes anyway.

And if we're forced to work within a system like this, shouldn't a state be able to spend their own money in their own state, even if the specific earmark is unconstitutional? I think a larger violation of the Constitution is instead spending that money in other states!

On the other hand, an active movement like this to strip all of these specific unconstitutional earmarks...in the long run states get their fair share of the loot, and in a more constitutional way.
Like I said, mixed feelings.

I read your rlc blog piece.

Here are some things to consider.

1. One of your main points was that RP received a low rating from the "Club for Growth." Having investigated the club for growth, I come to the conclusion that they are basically anti-Paul. I believe the reason for this is basically that Paul does not support corporatism.

There is a difference between the growth associated with liberty (for individuals and families) and the growth and success of corporations (or any corporate interests). The two are not compatible. It is not a matter of "rejecting the good to hold out for the perfect," as the Club for Growth pitches it, it is a matter of rejecting that which is unacceptable. No corporate interest (beyond the corporate interests of families) serves to increase liberty, and all special privileges enjoyed by corporate interests should be rejected.

I recall one woman on this forum mentioning that she benefited from corporate law benefits (or her family business did), but her personal benefit is not much of an argument. She seemed like a thoughtful and reasonable woman, but it is easy, I think, to be confused on this issue (as are many people including, I think, the OP). As long as the police force of government is used to redistribute wealth (in any way) and regulate individuals and families to benefit corporate interests, we have a problem. Dr. Paul clearly understands this, and it has made him many many enemies.

This, I have come to believe is the basic driving force behind conservative talk radio and its agenda to crush the current freedom movement. It is really another form of corporate radio. (There is NPR, National Corporate Radio, and the rest: Private Corporate Radio.) In any case...

Corporatism and corporate welfare are two things that RP speaks out against and on which I agree with him.

It is particularly telling to view the Club for Growth pages on RP when it comes to CAFTA and NAFTA. As has been pointed out on this forum many times, these are not free-trade agreements. They are steps to corporate totalitarianism and slavery for every individual.

2. Your blog also tries to cast doubt on RPs reasoning about the executive -vs- congressional spending based (largely) on your accusation that RP has supported "unconstitutional earmarks." Think of it this way. The unconstitutional part was that the money was taken from individuals and families in certain localities by the federal government and redistributed to (perhaps different) localities, mostly to their local governments or agencies. But after that has happened, voting for having that funding returned to local entities for whatever wasteful and crazy projects they have in mind (and for keeping the ability to do that) is much better than allowing the spending decisions to be made at a federal level---which will result in even more waste and craziness. Why? Well, because those local entities are at least closer to the individuals and families than federal bureaucrats. This is, in fact, an example of RP choosing that which is "better" over that which is "perfect." The Club for Growth predictably recasts this unfairly as "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

3. In short, I read your blog, and I'm not buyin' it. I listened to Private Corporate Radio talk about freedom and individuality, defense of the constitution, etc., and then watched them bury RP. The key stumbling block is what benefits individuals and families -vs- what benefits government and corporations.

His rationale is impeccable. In fact, it's so obvious that I question the motives of anyone who raises the issue again in an effort to beat this dead horse back to life.

But I still keep my shotgun loaded.

I can't see the future, but I can mitigate some possibilities by taking certain precautions.

Earmarks constitute defensive contingency measures. One does not unilaterally disarm, and one does not surrender any specific advantage, even while extolling generic virtues.

The decision to spend or not spend X is made by the Committee of the Whole. What to do with the pieces of X is determined either by earmarking or bureaucratic discretion. Once X is decided it won't change, irrespective of who has earmarked the bill.

Here's a direct link to the article:

http://www.rlc.org/2008/0...

-pb

The earmark debate is a red herring. All earmarks do is give Congress the ability to direct money to specific projects. Without earmarks, the same amount of money would be spent, but where it would be spent would be entirely in the control of the executive branch. Dr. Paul puts earmarks into spending bills to direct a share of the money back to his district and THEN he votes against the bill. It is a perfectly consistent position. He opposes the spending. But if the spending is going to happen over his vote against it, it is only fair that the taxpayers in his district get a fair share of the money that was taken from them.