Ron Paul's Earmarks
One of the odd things I hear about from time to time from many of my libertarian colleagues and friends is their perception that Texas Republican Ron Paul is a rare model of purity in a political pigsty.
I have many issues of agreement with Paul, particularly on health policy, and I've defended him publicly in the past on many of his calls for government reform. But this perception of Paul as a principled crusader who serves only the Constitution is at odds with his wholehearted embrace of typical pork-barrel politics - a difference which is all the more stark in the wake of House Republicans' voluntary ban on earmarks last year. The record on this is available to the public, but it attracts scant attention.
Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:
- $8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
- $2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
- $2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
- $2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
- $38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
- $18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
- $4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
- $11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
- $2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
- $5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
- $1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
- $4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.
All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they're still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made. He defends the practice here.
I'm sure many of these earmarks have a logical rationale behind them. And many of these areas have good lobbyists. But we ought to never put a politician on such a pedestal that we fail to recognize their blemishes. It's better to keep your eyes open about it all.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
This is sad to see as I had some respect for Dr Paul as a true fiscal conservative despite his isolationist views. He clearly has hung around DC too much.
May '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
The fact that he would request the earmarks, and then vote against them in order to maintain a patina of fiscal conservatism shows him to be just as feckless and lacking in integrity as any other politician in Washington. but his is worse: He is ineffective. At least if you're going to plunder the people's fisc for the benefit of your constituents, have the follow through to make sure that your constituents get the benefit of the politician they paid for.
Thanks for highlighting this, Ben.
Mar '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Whatever his flaws apparently many Iowans like what they see:
Public Policy Polling - December 13, 2011
EJHill nailed it, Why we're all full of Horse Manure and the Conventional Wisdom, too
The circus continues.
Edited on December 13, 2011 at 10:28pmOct '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
This is something that's bothered me a lot as well. In Weigel's video he has two reasons for it: 1) He'd rather Congress say where the money goes, not the executive, and 2) he represents his people and wants them to get what they pay in back. I sympathize with the first, but only recognize the second if it's necessary for spending or, in very dire situations, his own election. Considering his district and the mood in the country, I don't think they can all be necessary, and his comparison with Social Security isn't good enough, as he is the source of earmarks in this case; different relationship and different level of responsibility. I'm still supporting him in the primary, but still prefer Jim DeMint as my face of the earmark fight (though I acknowledge it's easier for a senator than a representative).
Oct '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
That's not why he does it. He's covering his bases, with a bit of politics sprinkled on. I mean, what if he got the money back for a project in which the locality would have had to levy a local tax to pay for the project, but now doesn't? I don't like that he validates the earmark process, but I think he does for more than just political gain. It's the same reason I could sleep at night (and, let's be honest, at my desk) while working for the federal government: just gettin' my tax dollars back. I quit, BTW.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
I don't really have a problem with it. He has a responsibility to his constituents to get some of the money they are sending to Washington back to the district.
He also makes an interesting argument that we need more earmarks, not less.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-less-government/
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
I think maybe I don't understand the way this works.
If I have Paul right, he is saying (in the video) that earmarks don't create additional spending; they simply ensure that already allocated funds be spent on specific projects. Further, he's saying that absent earmarks the president would be the one deciding how the money gets spent. And finally, he's saying that since the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to make budgeting decisions, earmarks properly keep them in the hands of Congress.
The reason I think I have that wrong is because it sounds like an argument in favor of earmarks, yet Paul says he votes against all of them and is against the entire process.
Clarification please.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
1) He votes against the budgets because they are way too big, and unconstitutional.
2)Earmarks are not the cause of the size of the budget.
3) He is in favor earmarks because:
Mar '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
I am glad somebody finally has pointed this all out. I am always amazed how some people think Ron Paul is some kind of Government outsider. He's been a Congressman for a total of about 20 years. If he was a liberal, we conservatives would be calling him a career politician! In fact, if he wins his seat again next year he'll have in more years as a politician than any of the other Republican candidates.
And while he's been in D.C., he's succeeded in doing nothing to stop the amount of spending and taxing that goes on at the Federal level. He likes to joke about how often he is the lone vote against many proposals. All that tells me is that he is not very competent at persuading people to change their minds. Maybe he should step aside and give another conservative/libertarian a chance to win his seat. They might have more luck since Paul hasn't changed the downward trajectory of this country at all during his years. You gotta wonder why he keeps running. Maybe he likes being a politician a little too much.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Ron Paul is a good illustration of how corrupting Washington, D.C. really is. Here we have an orthodox libertarian who preaches to the libertarian choir to keep the money rolling in, but still acts just like the rest of them when it comes to pork for his district.
Fortunately for him, none of the moderators in these recent debates understand the Constitution otherwise they might ask him which portion of Article I, Section 8 justifies his earmarks.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Ditto what GOVICIDE said. He's not doing what he does out of principal. It's a pitiful attempt to maintain a fake persona as a someone who is fiscally responsible. He votes against the bill so he can say with a smile that he's against earmarks. It's sad to see people buy into this notion that he's not a politician like the rest, willing to weasel his way through. I think it's an example of how mindlessly ideological and utopian he is.
Here's Tim Russert exposing the nonsense of all this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY
He reminds me of me when I was 15 and an obnoxious smart aleck.
Edited on December 14, 2011 at 12:07amDec '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Govicide and all the rest:
Are you seriously suggesting that if Rep. Paul did not secure these funds that this would somehow improve the fiscal situation in Washington?
He does, after all, and let me be clear about this:
Vote against the budgets.
And, really: Are we now suggesting that Ron Paul has the wrong instincts because he can't singlehandedly change the way the government appropriates and otherwise spends money as a single member of the House of Representatives? This is some failure of leadership?
And is anyone here going to try and tell me that Newt or Mitt or any of the rest have better instincts about how to reform Washington's spending habits? Is anyone going to make that case?
Didn't think so.
Oct '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
KarlUB:
And, really: Are we now suggesting that Ron Paul has the wrong instincts because he can't singlehandedly change the way the government appropriates and otherwise spends money as a single member of the House of Representatives? This is some failure of leadership?
Exactly. The solution to a lone wolf not bringing down a mammoth isn't to elect a calico kitten; it's to get more wolves. Ron isn't sneaking a couple Big Mac's onto the order and screaming "I don't want McDonalds!"; he's screaming "I don't want McDonald's, but if we have to stop here, I'd prefer a Big Mac!" I still prefer a backseat hunger strike, but I get where he's coming from. Better than dad getting him a McRib.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
The problem isn't that Paul hasn't solved the problem himself but that he's just as duplicitous as other politicians in misrepresenting himself. He inserts the earmarks so the pork makes it back to his district but then votes against when he knows it's going to pass anyway. So, he brings home the bacon and continues to insult our intelligence by pretending to be some kind of pure outsider who's true to his principles.
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
The scale of Ron Paul's request is a bit disturbing.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
KarlUB:
He does, after all, and let me be clear about this:
Vote against the budgets.
That's the fun part of the Ron Paul hypocrisy. He's the only orthodox libertarian in Congress and he knows these budgets are going to pass regardless of how he votes. He loads the budget up with pork for his district so that he can keep feeding at the government trough as a career politician and then claims purity because, gosh, he didn't vote for the budget.
Brilliant and he's made a successful political career out of it.
Sep '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Does Paul promise that as President he will veto any legislation like that which he voted against during his years as a representative? If so, then the question becomes not whether his earmarks make him a hypocrite, but the extent to which they diminish the likelihood that he will follow through on his veto promise (those admittedly overlap to some extent.) I'd certainly vote for a candidate if I thought there was even a remote chance that he'd attempt to enforce Article 1, Section 8 (as written, not as imagined.)
May '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Wait, so have the Ron Paul detractors bothered to assess his argument in defense of this practice, or will you pretend it does not exist? A cynical attempt to discredit Paul from those who dislike him for unrelated reasons.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Ron Paul discredits himself. He's a principled guy right up to the point where it might inhibit his ability to play the Washington game to keep him in office as a career politician.
Oxford Dictionaries defines cynical as "believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity"
That perfectly describes Paul's attitude towards pork projects for his district. He loads up the budget bill with pork for his district to maintain his status as a career politician. He then cynically justifies it by saying he doesn't vote for the budget bill anyway knowing that it will pass with other people's votes.
Or are we to believe that Ron Paul really believes that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes funding recreational fishing piers in his district?
Look, it's fine if people like and respect the guy. I'm not telling the Paul fans that they should reject their guy and go off into the wilderness. He's an orthodox libertarian who also likes being a career politician and has been corrupted a bit by it. It's not like the other candidates are better in this respect.
Jul '11
Re: Ron Paul's Earmarks
Todd
1) He votes against the budgets because they are way too big, and unconstitutional.
2)Earmarks are not the cause of the size of the budget.
3) He is in favor earmarks because:
Dec 13 at 2:23pm
My question is what are the criteria that congressional leaders use to determine total level of spending?
If previous earmarks are not taken into account and everyone starts from 0, then it seems that Dr. Paul is not at fault. However, if budgets are based on past earmarks then the good doctor is as much a part of the problem as anyone else in DC. Can anyone say which of these scenarios is closer to the truth?
-E