Ron Paul one of only four House Republicans to request earmarks for 2011 budget (UPDATED)

51 earmarks requests totaling $358,303,155 from libertarian favorite
By
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 at 5:12 pm

UPDATE: The original version of this article incorrectly listed earmarks from Fiscal Year 2010 as requests in Fiscal Year 2011. TAI drew those numbers from the Taxpayers for Common Sense which listed the earmarks from the wrong year. The earmark totals in the updated version have been drawn from Paul’s website, where each individual request from both 2010 and 2011 may be viewed. We apologize for the the error.

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.)

Comments

31 Comments

Jake Flake
Comment posted December 9, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

I voted for it before I voted against it. Ron Paul double speak!


World Spinner
Trackback posted December 9, 2010 @ 10:15 am

Ron Paul one of only four House Republicans to request earmarks ……

Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……


Hiimallen
Comment posted December 9, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

The only working brain in Congress… so far!
Let me help the morons who dont get it:

Earmarks are SUGGESTIONS for CONGRESS to spend money.
They have NOTHING to do with the AMOUNT spent. If the Congress does not suggest spending via earmarks, then the bureaucrats in the unconstitutional departments and bureau’s of the executive branch get to do it.
If you want to know how the Constitution mandated how the government should run, simply watch Ron Paul work.


Create the Best Weight Loss Solutions — Four Natural Weight Loss Methods Revealed! | Quick Weight Loss Diet
Pingback posted December 9, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

[...] Ron Paul one of only four House Republicans to request earmarks … [...]


HerpDerp
Comment posted April 3, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

If you don’t understand what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t bother saying anything. Please read the post above yours. If you still don’t understand, then you don’t know anything about how our government works and you don’t get to talk about politics anymore.


Matt Colgan
Comment posted April 4, 2011 @ 4:19 am

HimAllen and DerpHerp

ahem:
Earmarks are FUNDS provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.

Oh, and here’s the link to the OMB
http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/

So…yeah, you two are in fact the ones who “don’t know anything about how our government works and you don’t get to talk about politics anymore. “


Matt Colgan
Comment posted April 4, 2011 @ 4:19 am

HimAllen and DerpHerp

ahem:
Earmarks are FUNDS provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.

Oh, and here’s the link to the OMB
http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/

So…yeah, you two are in fact the ones who “don’t know anything about how our government works and you don’t get to talk about politics anymore. “


Patrick O'Connor
Comment posted April 4, 2011 @ 4:25 am

The whole “earmarks!” drill is a distraction, giving the proles something innocuous to fixate on…while the pillaging of the Republic continues apace.


Guest
Comment posted April 4, 2011 @ 6:55 am

Typical libertarian tea-bagger, say one thing and do another. When will these slime balls have to pay for their hypocrisy?


Juggernaut Nihilism
Comment posted April 6, 2011 @ 1:29 am

Not particularly fair, IMO. Dr. Paul has stated his position and it’s a reasonable one. If a person believes that private pensions should replace a federal, unfunded Social Security system, integrity doesn’t require that he send back his Social Security checks when he comes of age, after paying into the system his entire life. Nor should a person be expected to keep their kids out of public school because they favor a voucher system.


Juggernaut Nihilism
Comment posted April 6, 2011 @ 1:29 am

Not particularly fair, IMO. Dr. Paul has stated his position and it’s a reasonable one. If a person believes that private pensions should replace a federal, unfunded Social Security system, integrity doesn’t require that he send back his Social Security checks when he comes of age, after paying into the system his entire life. Nor should a person be expected to keep their kids out of public school because they favor a voucher system.


SakaScotii
Comment posted April 9, 2011 @ 2:02 am

EARMARKS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND NECESSARY SO THAT THE unelected BUREAUCRACIES DON’T MISMANAGE IT EVEN WORSE THAN THE DEMOCRATICALLY elected CONGRESSMEN!


Oldcars
Comment posted April 9, 2011 @ 2:03 am

You are the only scrotum muncher around here, you Queer!


Oldcars
Comment posted April 9, 2011 @ 2:04 am

Exactly. They account for roughly one percent of all Federal spending!


Oldcars
Comment posted April 9, 2011 @ 2:06 am

You must be a John Kerry voter, you Flake.

Die MOTHER FUCKER. AND EAT THE SHIT YOU WALLOW IN!


The Case for Gary Johnson: Why Liberty Advocates Should Look Big Picture in 2012 | Republican Liberty Caucus
Pingback posted April 30, 2011 @ 10:46 am

[...] Unfortunately, Paul opposes NAFTA, while Johnson supports it. Congressman Paul is one of the most aggressive earmarkers in Congress, even while often — though not always — voting against the final versions [...]


The Case for Gary Johnson | Republican Liberty Caucus
Pingback posted May 3, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

[...] Unfortunately, Paul opposes NAFTA, while Johnson supports it. Congressman Paul is one of the most aggressive earmarkers in Congress, even while often — though not always — voting against the final versions [...]


Snoocks2
Comment posted June 16, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

You need a sock in your mouth – one with a lock on it;-(


Kristin Thomas
Comment posted July 8, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

Ron Paul is a radical, a racist, a hypocrite and an anti-semite!  He talks a good game, but at the end of the day, he is just another career politician who uses his position and place in Congress for his own personal agenda.  It’s not about the people, it’s about Ron Paul…stop being fooled, he’s no different than the rest.


Daveh_2120
Comment posted August 6, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

There is so much misinformation and outright lies floating around out there. Especially in the media. I see so many people misrepresenting Earmarks and what they are for it is almost unbelievable.
Earmarks are NOT a bad thing! There is definitely not to many earmarks! There is actually not enough earmarks being put into spending bills.
Earmarks aren’t extra money added to a bill they are simply a designation of where the money already in the bill will be spent. Otherwise a big lump sum of money would get handed to the executive branch where there is no oversight or accountability on where it will be spent.
Dr Paul has explained that it is actually congresses responsibility to earmark spending bills so that there is accountability for where the money is spent. He doesn’t agree with the spending bills and routinely votes against them but he does add earmarks to the bills so that that if they do manage to be passed the money will at least be spent in America instead of on abridge in Afghanistan.
There is currently only 1% of the budget that gets earmarked every year when in reality %100 of the budget should be getting earmarked. The power to decide where the money is spend should be being handed over so freely to the treasury and the rest of the executive branch.
Lets start clearing up this misinformation about earmarks! It seems to be the only thing people can dig up and skew in an attempt to discredit Dr Paul. They can only do this by completely misrepresenting what earmarks actually are. Cutting earmarks out of the budget would save absolutely zero, would add even more government secrecy and would remove even more government accountability.


Sean
Comment posted August 12, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

Not only his foreign policy, but his economic policy regarding to earmarks is dead wrong. Why not congress return the money who belong to, tax payers in the first place instead of thinking of spending for special interest group? Its not their money. Even if earmarks consist 1% of the budget, it doesn’t justify waste OUR money even one penny! He gives true libertarians a bad name.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 16, 2011 @ 6:20 pm

Also something that nobody has mentioned that makes this even more insidious and complete hypocritical crap is that these “budget” figures would actually go DOWN.  I work in govt. and at the end of every fiscal year like clock work these B^$tards scramble around buying chairs and computers and phones…..ANYTHING to spend either right at their budget or just a bit above.

And why?

So that next year their budget won’t be cut.

Earmarks are SPENDING.  The Ronulan Overlord and his 500+ buddies in DC have got to STOP SPENDING.

Clever semantics and hide the money trail antics will not get us out of this mess.  And i find it a hoot that Ronulans all over this land will decry having to send their taxes to lay abouts in Cali or NY or ChiTown but are conspicuously silent on sending my money from Indiana for local downtown beautification projects.  ARE WE BROKE OR WHAT???????  Could we use the old forking trashcans until we get a bit more flush with cash??????????

PS………anybody who NEEDS to be prez as bad as Paul will NEVER get my vote.

Once you’ve been told a couple of times by the American public……NO……maybe you take the hint.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 16, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

Yeah by all means don’t let folks at the DoT tell you what road to fix because they are observing ALL the roads…..send the money to the Ronulan Overlords district so that some small town Barney Fife’s have say.


Tnc Del
Comment posted August 17, 2011 @ 8:16 am

Ron Paul is a FRAUD.


Colonel Muthtard
Comment posted August 17, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

The money has already been allocated, earmarking just sends some of the money back to the constituents, instead of sending it straight to the Washington furnace. It’s really the vote on the appropriations bill that matters the most, which Ron Paul always votes against.


Colonel Muthtard
Comment posted August 17, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

Returning the money to the taxpayers is exactly why Ron Paul is taking this position on earmarks. Earmarks come out of the funds that have already been allocated for the spending bill, so some of it is either sent back to the constituents via an earmark, or it just goes to the executive branch and the administration can piss it away as usual. The vote on the appropriations bill is what really matters, but why not take some money home to the taxpayers that would otherwise be burned up in a furnace?


Ronb77
Comment posted August 19, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena
ave #8 tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents
and paid 5000 dollars to obtain a US tourist visa. she also submitted
fake employment records to obtain a work visa. she is now applying for
citizenship. her contact at the embassy was man named sandman.


Paul Pittman
Comment posted August 20, 2011 @ 7:34 am

Now, now, let us be civil. You wouldn’t want everybody to think Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of whacked out, fouled mouth nut jobs.


VictoriaL
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

The money has already been budgeted, so all he is doing is protecting the people in his district. It’s the appopriation bill that matters which he always votes against. I wish my congressman were this smart to think about and protect the people in their district, but in IL we have the dumbest politicians in American history.


VictoriaL
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

And you’re very ignorant.


A Son of Thor
Comment posted August 24, 2011 @ 5:15 am

Oh yes, and I am sure that Obama’s OMB is completely unbiased in it’s statements, using such neutral words as “circumvent”, “merit-based”, “curtails”, “responsibilities”.

First, what is considered a “merit-based or competitive allocation process” is determined by a governmental regulatory agency. The merit of these recipients is determined by our elected representatives, not some bureaucrat that is not elected and has no accountability except (maybe not even) the President.

Second, what is the executive’s “statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process” is precisely what Congress says it is. So, how can congress, by directing the executive how to allocate the funds, prevent the executive from allocating the funds as directed???

Your reasoning … and the OMBs … is really quite circular.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.