Ron Pauls Earmark Request for 2009

[specsaregood]

Cavuto said on his interview that RP was asking for $73 million in earmarks for 2009...let's suppose I live in his district and I ask for a $74 million earmark...what is RP supposed to do? Not question my amount, submit my earmark and allow me to get more money for myself than the rest of his district?

Yeah, maybe so. Just because an earmark is submitted does not mean that it makes it through.

Just looking at it on the surface, RP's job:
1. Submit all earmarks requested by his constituents, maybe help them alter it to make it more "passable" but not to pass judgement on whether to submit the requests.
2. His judgement job would be during voting, in which he would vote against the submitted earmark.

 

[Bossobass]

Ron Paul's stance has been unchanged over his carreer as a Congressman:

"I would start with the Departments. The Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security...", etc.

Looking at the 2010 budget estimates and adding the Recovery Act appropriations to the various budgets, we get a better picture of where RP is coming from.

Budget/ Recovery Act App./ Department
$26B.............$7B....................Agriculture
$14B.............$8B....................Commerce
$47B.............$81B..................Education
$26B.............$39B..................Energy
$77B.............$23B..................Health & Human Services
$43B.............$3B....................Homeland Security
$48B.............$14B..................HUD
$73B.............$48B..................DOT
Etc., etc., but there is well over 1/2 trillion bucks listed so far...

By contrast, look at the Small Business Administration's budget. $0.7B plus another $0.7B added through the Recovery Act. Think about that for just one minute...

The federal agency that is supposed to help Small Business in America, which represent $7.5 TRILLION (more than half) of GDP and more than HALF OF EMPLOYMENT is allocated 1/4,300th of the budget and 1/1,400th of the Recovery Act appropriations totals.

Now, look at RP's Earmark funds for his district. Nearly every penny of it will go to small businesses in his district. Whether to subcontractors for the Army Corps of Engineers or directly to local small businesses.

Every penny of this money can be tracked from the budget to the tax returns with full transparency and directly or indirectly benefits every citizen in Ron's district...

VS...

Having those funds be dispersed by some huge, bloated, unsupervised federal agency, which is nearly the same as this gem (always one of my favorite sorts of budget "proposals"):

National Intelligence Program..........$???.....Recovery Act.....$???....[CLASSIFIED]

This is a no-brainer. Just use my common sense general rule. When it involves Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, Ron Paul is right, Pundits, Neocons, Politicians, Economists, Media, etc., are wrong.

Then, go do some research for yourself to confirm the veracity of my common sense general rule.

Get rid of the federal agencies, slash the budget until there is a surplus and earmark all of the remaining appropriations in the form of TAX REDUCTION. Liberty, Peace and Prosperity.

Bosso

 

[dannno]

I disagree with Dr. Paul on this subject. I understand that he wants to bring back some of the money to his district and that money would be spent either way. I'd rather have my money back than it to be spent on projects in my district. He does vote against his own earmarks, but that's kind of like proposing an all out gun ban, knowing it will pass, but voting against it. I think him and the rest of the GOP would garner more respect if they kicked the earmark habit.

No, see, you still don't understand. When Ron Paul requests an earmark, it doesn't increase the budget. He doesn't increase spending, he is merely allocating it. If he doesn't use it, then it goes to the executive branch.

 

[dannno]

Why can't the earmarks simply be sent back in the form of a tax break or something?

Hah. Hahahahhaa. I'm sure he would do that if he could.

 

[surf]

do i need a college education to dredge? forgive me, but those will be the best dredged waterways in the world. $200,000 to recruit.... i know, it's our hero, but these do seem over-the-top. it would seem that at least he could've talked these projects into being performed at more reasonable rates. maybe he did.

 

[ItsTime]

No, see, you still don't understand. When Ron Paul requests an earmark, it doesn't increase the budget. He doesn't increase spending, he is merely allocating it. If he doesn't use it, then it goes to the executive branch.

You have to love the public school system! EARMARKS ARE GOOD. End of story.

Why would I want Obama deciding how much of MY MONEY gets put back into my state?

I would rather have THE REP THAT WAS ELECTED BY MY DISTRICT request that money back in a form that our district feels NOT King Obama.

 

[Malakai0]

People need to understand that earmarking funds is a congressmans job. A big chunk of money gets taken by the federal gov from each district in income and other federal taxes. Earmarking get's that money back to the district, and does so in a transparent way.

And he ultimately votes against the bill. But if it is going to pass anyway it IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY to get as much of his constituents money back into their pockets/district as possible.

 

[forsmant]

I think it shows a little degrading of principle and slight dishonesty. Voting no just to relieve his conscience or to be able to say he is consistent. That being said, I would do the same and encourage everyone to get theirs because that is how the government works.

Perhaps it is not the most honest way to go about being principled or eliminating the corruption. But one man is not enough to disturb the flow of the ocean. Until we unite and change this corrupt bribery and lack of congressional leadership I say get what you can. In fact I will write my congress man and ask him to get money for the federally mandated sewer improvment for our city. That way my monthly bill won't increase by 50$. Thats enough to seriously dent some peoples lifestyle.

 

[Trigonx]

I think it shows a little degrading of principle and slight dishonesty. Voting no just to relieve his conscience or to be able to say he is consistent. That being said, I would do the same and encourage everyone to get theirs because that is how the government works.

Perhaps it is not the most honest way to go about being principled or eliminating the corruption. But one man is not enough to disturb the flow of the ocean. Until we unite and change this corrupt bribery and lack of congressional leadership I say get what you can. In fact I will write my congress man and ask him to get money for the federally mandated sewer improvment for our city. That way my monthly bill won't increase by 50$. Thats enough to seriously dent some peoples lifestyle.

do you feel less principled when you do your job? That is all Ron Paul is doing. He votes "No" regardless if he knows the bill will pass or not pass. He votes on his principles, not because hes trying to save face since he earmarked some money to his district. Those that say he shoves the earmarks in because he knows the bill will pass are incorrect IMO. If he knew the bill would fail by a huge huge margin he would still put the earmarks in because he is elected to represent his constituents.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If FEMA busted down my door and carried me off to jail because I failed to recycle an empty can of wasp spray according to regulation, I think the last thing on my mind would be how lucky I am that the money came back to my district and was used so wisely.

 

[micahnelson]

I think i addressed this issue in my "The Earmark Canard" thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=182736 if interested.

Scaled down for clarity.

1) Congress creates a budget. 500 Dollars for Defense. 100 Dollars for Transportation. 200 Dollars for Education.

2) Congressmen add earmarks, "I request 25 Dollars of the Defense Budget go to building a VA Hospital in my district."

3) Budget stays unchanged, but Defense has 475 Dollars to spend according to its financial planning, and 25 dollars to use to build a VA Hospital.

4) Budget is voted on and approved.

The Earmark does not change the size of the budget. It simply gives our representatives a chance to get federal money spent in our districts as part of the overall budget. Without earmarks, all spending would be decided by department heads and committee. How is that better for America?

When people oppose Earmarks, they are really opposing the size of the budget, and rightfully so. So why the fervor against earmarks? People are ignorant of the facts.

Earmarks help us get money back from the bureaucracy. Of course some in DC oppose them. Since when do both parties oppose something? Why when it gives them more power, of course. Removing earmarks lets government appointees do all the spending wherever they want with no accountability trail.

This isn't a difficult concept.

 

[forsmant]

do you feel less principled when you do your job? That is all Ron Paul is doing. He votes "No" regardless if he knows the bill will pass or not pass. He votes on his principles, not because hes trying to save face since he earmarked some money to his district. Those that say he shoves the earmarks in because he knows the bill will pass are incorrect IMO. If he knew the bill would fail by a huge huge margin he would still put the earmarks in because he is elected to represent his constituents.

This is ridiculous. First of all my job does not involve spending other peoples money. There is no comparison. Does a thief feel less principled when stealing from the poor or the rich? Some peoples jobs are detrimental and harmful to society. Its just his job is a poor argument to stand on.

Funneling tax (stolen) money to Washington only to redistribute it back disproportional is not the job of our representatives. That gives the Federal government more control over local politics and local governments. If the money weren't taken at all the local governments might be able to govern better.

Ron is justifying his principles by voting against them not by putting them in the bills.

 

[nobody's_hero]

As far as I'm concerned, any money that is left over in the budget* from not being spent to carry out Congress's duly delegated powers (the ones mostly found in the very short list of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) is NOT to be allocated and spent in any way, shape, or form by either the Congress, the Executive Office, or the Judicial Branch of the Federal government of the United States. If the people of Dr. Paul's district (as well as all Congressional districts in the U.S.) want their representative to violate the U.S. Constitution's specifications on what the Federal Government can and cannot spend on, that is their sin (thank you Andrew Jackson), not their representative's. If the requesters don't like it, they can vote for someone else to submit their unconstituitonal requests (hell, I'll give them both of my Georgia Senators, especially Saxby "Farm Subsidy" Chambliss). They don't deserve someone like Dr. Paul, if that is the case.

*I say "left over", but we all know that the Federal government is bankrupt, out of gas, and running on fumes. Even the 1% that has been set aside for earmarks doesn't actually exist, especially not with the amount of debt we're in.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Hah. Hahahahhaa. I'm sure he would do that if he could.

Perhaps Ron Paul simply hasn't considered it as an option.

I don't think it is an impossible task to return unspent money to the people and let them decide for themselves on how to put it to use. Returned spent money, on the other hand, isn't much good to folks.

 

[dannno]

This is ridiculous. First of all my job does not involve spending other peoples money. There is no comparison. Does a thief feel less principled when stealing from the poor or the rich? Some peoples jobs are detrimental and harmful to society. Its just his job is a poor argument to stand on.

Funneling tax (stolen) money to Washington only to redistribute it back disproportional is not the job of our representatives. That gives the Federal government more control over local politics and local governments. If the money weren't taken at all the local governments might be able to govern better.

Ron is justifying his principles by voting against them not by putting them in the bills.

You still don't get it. Sigh..

When he puts in an ear mark it doesn't increase the budget. It doesn't increase spending. It doesn't increase taxes. The total funding amounts are already decided before the earmarks are put in, the earmarks just allocate the funds. He doesn't even put the earmarks in, all he does is put in the requests from his district.

If he doesn't do it, then the executive branch spends it, going in the opposite direction of what your post implies.. the Federal government gets even more control of the money!! Let the reps control it as much as possible. Ron Paul says EVERYTHING should be ear marked.. do you get it??

Easy concept. He is not slighting in his principles. The public needs to stop falling for this crap, but first Ron Paul supporters need to stop falling for this crap!! You need to realize that 98% of the people in this country CAN in fact be fooled by those in power!! I know this is a difficult concept for some non-truthers to accept...

 

[forsmant]

You still don't get it. Sigh..

When he puts in an ear mark it doesn't increase the budget. It doesn't increase spending. It doesn't increase taxes. The total funding amounts are already decided before the earmarks are put in, the earmarks just allocate the funds. He doesn't even put the earmarks in, all he does is put in the requests from his district.

If he doesn't do it, then the executive branch spends it, going in the opposite direction of what your post implies.. the Federal government gets even more control of the money!! Let the reps control it as much as possible. Ron Paul says EVERYTHING should be ear marked.. do you get it??

Easy concept. He is not slighting in his principles. The public needs to stop falling for this crap, but first Ron Paul supporters need to stop falling for this crap!! You need to realize that 98% of the people in this country CAN in fact be fooled by those in power!! I know this is a difficult concept for some non-truthers to accept...

I don't give a shit if it doesn't increase the budget. The fact that it was taken in the first place is the problem. Having the congressman determine how his district should spend money is just as undesirable to me as having the executive branch spend it. NONE OF THEM should have it. Participating in the corruption and bribery cannot curtail government. If it isn't a big deal then why would he vote against the bills? Because he knows the system is corrupted. He alone cannot change it so he is cynical and does what he can. I call that a weakening of principle.

What Ron Paul says isn't the gospel truth to me. I might not like his wife's cookies and I sure as hell don't like the federal government taking money and redistributing it to those who ASK for it.

This being said, I myself would allocate as much money to my district as I could get away with. I am very cynical and that is how the government works. I do not actively seek to change it but I do criticize the absurdities of those in "power."
Including Ron Paul.

 

[Knightskye]

This is misleading. These are from previous years.

I remember talking about the Fox apartment security cameras, and the $26 million for DC schools last year, at least.

$71.5 million for FEMA seems a bit much, though.

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Seems to be mostly corps of engineering kind of stuff. Not a big deal really.

 

[A. Havnes]

Most people who are against Dr. Paul's use of earmarks just have no idea what an earmark is. People have been talking about The Obama Deception, and so I headed over the the infowars forums (I'm not registered there, so I couldn't reply), and discovered that a few people were really railing Ron Paul for the earmarks. Some people just have no brains.

 

[gls]

This being said, I myself would allocate as much money to my district as I could get away with. I am very cynical and that is how the government works. I do not actively seek to change it but I do criticize the absurdities of those in "power."
Including Ron Paul.

...

So you're criticizing Ron Paul for something that you admit you would do?

Doesn't make much sense.

Would you rather him not be in Congress at all?