Ron Pauls Earmark Request for 2009

[TheTruth]

Here is the list:

Ron Paul's earmark requests for FY2009

house.gov
Ron Paul has disclosed his earmark requests for 2009.

The deadline has passed for House members to submit their requests for earmark projects for fiscal year 2009.
We'll post the requests by the Houston delegation as we receive them. Here they are for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson:
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


This seems COMPLETELY out of character.

 

[ClayTrainor]

This seems COMPLETELY out of character.

If you really feel this way, it's because you don't understand what an 'earmark' is.

Let me put it this way for you.... If a robber robs you of everything you own, and then offers half of it back to you... do you say "no, i don't want it"?


All ron paul is doing is making sure that his constituents get their money back. He voted against the bill, and would rather that it wasn't passed at all, but sinced it got passed anyway he's going to make sure his district gets their fair share.

Get it?

you can't find anyone in washington more conservative than ron paul, and this is a pretty weak attempt at staining his record.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

The money is going to get spent. I don't blame home for making sure that some gets used in his district. I may not agree we the rules, but you sometimes have to play the game.

 

[TheTruth]

Yeah, I just saw what he had to saw on youtube...

It makes sense...

 

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah, I just saw what he had to saw on youtube...

It makes sense...

yup


it really does make sense...

We are going to get smeared by the media for this though, i bet you

 

[Dripping Rain]

Anyone who watches this video and still attacks Ron Paul on earmarks needs a nice electric shock therapy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww

 

[ladyjade3]

Should people pay federal income taxes and get nothing but bureaucracy back? These are simply things people from the district requested that he's passing along.

A full refund of all income taxes for his constituents is not an option.

Although if it was, it would be a VERY popular place to live!

There is no reason to let Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama spend his constituents tax dollars on their own things. Besides, Congress has the power of the purse, constitutionally, so this kind of direction of funds makes sense. It's the overall size of the budget that is the problem.

Fighting earmarks is fighting for an even stronger executive branch, since without them, the president and various bureaucrats would spend the same money.

 

[Flirple]

Should people pay federal income taxes and get nothing but bureaucracy back? These are simply things people from the district requested that he's passing along.

A full refund of all income taxes for his constituents is not an option.

Although if it was, it would be a VERY popular place to live!

There is no reason to let Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama spend his constituents tax dollars on their own things. Besides, Congress has the power of the purse, constitutionally, so this kind of direction of funds makes sense. It's the overall size of the budget that is the problem.

Fighting earmarks is fighting for an even stronger executive branch, since without them, the president and various bureaucrats would spend the same money.

Rachel,
Tell Ron that when he is talking to the media about this issue to use the analogy that Max used on these boards back during the campaign when this issue came up:

Here's how earmarks work:

Supoose you and 2 co-workers have a common lunch fund. You are debating over what to order for lunch. You prefer Chineses food which costs less, but your two buddies want a fancy pizza with all the toppings.

Before you actually vote on where to order lunch from, you make it clear to them that if pizza wins, you are "earmarking" two slices for yourself. What the heck...it's YOUR money.

When the vote is cast, you vote AGAINST the fancy pizza expenditure in favor of the more economical Chinese food.

When you lose the vote, aren't you still entitled to the slices that you "earmarked" and paid for?

Ron Paul puts his earmarks in, but ALWAYS VOTES AGAINST THE FINAL BILL. When he loses the vote (which he always does because he is the most fiscally responsible man in Congress), he gets money earmarked for his district. If he doesn't earmark...that money will be spent elsewhere!...So if you don't eat your slices.....your buddies get to screw you out of lunch...

I've found that when I use that analogy to explain it to people they immediately understand this issue and Ron's position.

 

[TastyWheat]

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.

 

[qh4dotcom]

If you really feel this way, it's because you don't understand what an 'earmark' is.

Let me put it this way for you.... If a robber robs you of everything you own, and then offers half of it back to you... do you say "no, i don't want it"?


All ron paul is doing is making sure that his constituents get their money back. He voted against the bill, and would rather that it wasn't passed at all, but sinced it got passed anyway he's going to make sure his district gets their fair share.

Get it?

you can't find anyone in washington more conservative than ron paul, and this is a pretty weak attempt at staining his record.

RP has a valid argument about returning tax money stolen from his constituents back to them through earmarks, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for each earmark and why some of his questionable earmarks are not waste.

$3.5 million for study of health risks of exposure to vanadium? Why so much money for something 99.9% of his district constituents will not be exposed to? Where did he get this amount from?

$26 million for Washington, D.C. "Reading is Fundamental" program? I thought his earmarks were supposed to benefit his constituents, not the residents of Washington D.C. 26 million? Isn't that too much?

All ron paul is doing is making sure that his constituents get their money back.

Not all his constituents get their money back....it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do laugh their way to the bank....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

 

[Join The Paul Side]

RP has a valid argument about returning tax money stolen from his constituents back to them through earmarks, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for each earmark and why some of his questionable earmarks are not waste.

$3.5 million for study of health risks of exposure to vanadium? Why so much money for something 99.9% of his district constituents will not be exposed to? Where did he get this amount from?

$26 million for Washington, D.C. "Reading is Fundamental" program? I thought his earmarks were supposed to benefit his constituents, not the residents of Washington D.C. 26 million? Isn't that too much?



Not all his constituents get their money back....it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do laugh their way to the bank....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

As far as I know, Ron is not asking for those specific amounts. His constituents are. He represents them. When they want to petition the federal government for tax money they go through him. It's not his job to impose his views on their requests. It's his job to submit their petiton. It's that simple. He doesn't determine the amount they ask for because it's them asking for it. They determine. He's just doing his job even though he opposes government spending.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You have got to respect that Ron Paul represents his constituents and forwards their petitions for spending.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Why can't Ron Paul simply tell his constituents that the Federal government doesn't have the power to specify how this "extra" money should be spent? Why can't the earmarks simply be sent back in the form of a tax break or something?

An earmark that says "$5 million for tax breaks for the people of Texas Congressional District 14, due to overtaxation by the federal government" looks better than "$5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood". Do the people of Friendswood just not know how to open the lids to their garbage cans?—I mean, WTF? Or was this the work of one person who couldn't get his/her local government to pay for his/her hare-brained schemes and had to run to the Federal government for other people's tax dollars instead?

The scary thing is, they want to put FEMA in charge of household recycling? You cannot convince me that there was a popular demand for that at the local level. We're fu(ked, y'all!

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Today:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/11/news/economy/earmark_primer/index.htm?postversion=2009031109

Earmarks: Myth and reality
Everybody hates 'em. But what are earmarks - really? They make an easy target but may not be as big a problem as you think.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's impossible to listen to debates about the federal budget without getting an earful about earmarks.

Earmarks are often -- but not always correctly -- branded as wasteful spending or pork. They are easy to assail, especially when the federal government's use of taxpayer dollars is on track to reach a new stratosphere this year because of the financial crisis.

Indeed, politicians on both sides of the aisle rail against earmarks.

The latest tirade has come from Republicans, who have sought unsuccessfully to amend the $410 billion fiscal year 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the Senate on Tuesday night. That bill is estimated to have $7.7 billion worth of earmarks requested by lawmakers -- or about 2% of the total bill.

But when it comes to earmarks, the parties each take as good as they give.

In any given year, earmarks requested by members of the majority party typically account for 60% of earmarks, with the remaining 40% coming from members of the minority party.

"It isn't a partisan issue," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog group.
What's an earmark - really?

The term earmark originated in ancient England when farmers tagged -- or marked the ears -- of their livestock mixed among the village herd.

Today, the meaning is a little less tangible.

Typically, when Congress appropriates federal funding to government agencies, it's up to the agencies to decide how that money gets doled out to projects in states, cities and counties, and those decisions are made through an application-and-review process.

Except when earmarks are involved.

Definitions of what constitutes an earmark vary widely, and government agencies have different ways of cataloguing them. Most typically, an earmark is defined as a slice of the money allocated to an agency that a lawmaker or the president has requested be set aside for a specific project.

So earmarks aren't additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount lawmakers have agreed to spend for a given year.

"If earmarks go, the amount of money stays the same. It's more about who decides how the money will be spent," said Charles Konigsberg, a former assistant budget director in the Clinton administration and now chief budget counsel at deficit watchdog group the Concord Coalition.

Earmarks aren't always included in the text of a spending bill. Sometimes, they may only be included in the conference report that represents an agreement between the House and Senate about what will be in the final spending bill.

In that case, "technically they're not legally binding, but they're politically binding," Konigsberg said. That is, it's not in an agency's interest to anger the subcommittee that provides its funding.

To make matters more opaque, the language used to describe the request can be "imprecise" and requires "a subjective decision" on the part of an agency to figure out congressional intent, according to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report.
How many are there?

Earmarks aren't a new phenomenon. The Government Accountability Office has found examples dating back to the early years of the republic, including one from 1791 for $50,756.53 to be spent on "several objects" requested by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The money was targeted for "converting the Beacon of Georgia into a lighthouse and for the purchase of hydrometers," among other things.

While there have always been earmarks, their number grew exponentially between 1995 and 2006. That's partly because lawmakers began to use earmarks as a way to help incumbents who risked losing re-election, Ellis said. And part of it was a feedback loop: as earmarks grew, so did the ranks of lobbyists to secure them.

"More earmarks begat more lobbyists begat more earmarks," Ellis said.

Today, earmarks can number several thousand a year. But in the end, their total dollar amount typically represents less than 1% of the federal budget.

"People think big chunks of the federal budget are being shoved into earmarks, and it's just not the case," Konigsberg said.

On Wednesday, President Obama is expected to make an announcement about paring earmarks back further.
What risks do earmarks pose?

Still, less than 1% of a $3 trillion-plus budget is not a negligible amount of money. But is it wasteful spending?

That's in the eye of the beholder. Earmark beneficiaries -- which can be the citizens of a state or a city in need of a better transit system, for instance -- may not see it as wasteful at all.

"Some are worthwhile projects, but they're the product of a bad system," Ellis said.

It's a system based on "political muscle rather than merit," he said. Translation: Senior members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees typically get the most earmarks.

Is there a better way?

Ellis believes Congress should set up an objective, merit-based earmark system that establishes a list of priorities. Transportation projects, for example, could be required to meet criteria that reflect national priorities such as improving traffic density, commuter safety or energy efficiency.

"Right now, no one can tell me why one project gets money and another doesn't," Ellis said.
Earmarks: The bigger picture

Some experts say the biggest problem with earmarks is that their status as budget-bad-boy is overblown, detracting from the real trouble with federal spending.

As astonishing as the government's debt levels may be in the short-run because of the financial crisis -- well over a $1 trillion deficit this year alone -- the long-run picture is much uglier because of the pressures entitlement programs will place on the federal budget.

Left unchanged, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone, which now accounts for roughly 5% of GDP, is projected to grow to more than 6% in 2019 and to 12% by 2050, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And that doesn't include the growing cost of Social Security and other government spending.

"The impact of earmarks has been overemphasized; they're a red herring," Konigsberg said. "So much attention is paid to them and so little attention is paid to our long-term fiscal condition."

First Published: March 11, 2009: 8:04 AM ET

 

[specsaregood]

So earmarks aren't additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount lawmakers have agreed to spend for a given year.

"If earmarks go, the amount of money stays the same. It's more about who decides how the money will be spent," said Charles Konigsberg, a former assistant budget director in the Clinton administration and now chief budget counsel at deficit watchdog group the Concord Coalition.

While there have always been earmarks, their number grew exponentially between 1995 and 2006. That's partly because lawmakers began to use earmarks as a way to help incumbents who risked losing re-election, Ellis said. And part of it was a feedback loop: as earmarks grew, so did the ranks of lobbyists to secure them.

"More earmarks begat more lobbyists begat more earmarks," Ellis said.

Some experts say the biggest problem with earmarks is that their status as budget-bad-boy is overblown, detracting from the real trouble with federal spending.

"The impact of earmarks has been overemphasized; they're a red herring," Konigsberg said. "So much attention is paid to them and so little attention is paid to our long-term fiscal condition."

The comment about: "More earmarks begat more lobbyists begat more earmarks," Ellis said. brings up an interesting question. There is always lots of talk about how lobbyists affect our congress and its spending habits.

What effect do lobbyists have on the unelected bureaucrat's that spend all the huge amounts of money NOT earmarked? Are we to believe that those people are not lobbied? Is there a record of lobbyist interaction with those people?

 

[ladyjade3]

Thanks for posting, Scribbler

 

[qh4dotcom]

As far as I know, Ron is not asking for those specific amounts. His constituents are. He represents them. When they want to petition the federal government for tax money they go through him. It's not his job to impose his views on their requests. It's his job to submit their petiton. It's that simple. He doesn't determine the amount they ask for because it's them asking for it. They determine. He's just doing his job even though he opposes government spending.

Sure it's his job to impose his views on their requests...if an amount is inflated, he's supposed to question it....someone has to make sure no one is being ripped off...remember that it's all taxpayer money that is supposed to be invested wisely.

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 and allow me to get more money for myself than the rest of his district?

I agree with him that there has to be more earmarks so more people can benefit...BUT earmark amounts then have to be smaller and into the thousands, not the millions....otherwise what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those few privileged ones who do.

 

[specsaregood]

Sure it's his job to impose his views on their requests...if an amount is inflated, he's supposed to question it....someone has to make sure no one is being ripped off...remember that it's all taxpayer money...I agree with him that there has to be more earmarks so more people can benefit...BUT earmark amounts then have to be smaller and into the thousands, not the millions....otherwise what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those few privileged ones who do.

I'm not quite so sure about that. If he does question/impose his views on the earmark requests from his constituents and decide which get added and which don't your argument holds some merit.
BUT
if he just submits ANY earmark request from his constituents then proceeds to vote against them, I don't think your argument holds up. It sounds screwy but it kinda makes sense that way.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I'm not quite so sure about that. If he does question/impose his views on the earmark requests from his constituents and decide which get added and which don't your argument holds some merit.
BUT
if he just submits ANY earmark request from his constituents then proceeds to vote against them, I don't think your argument holds up. It sounds screwy but it kinda makes sense that way.

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?

 

[smithtg]

this whole thread makes me think... where there is money to be "handed out" there are beggars. These beggars are in the federal agencies but also in local government usually policitians, but also plenty of influential citizens wanting "government money" to solve their issues. Rather than get creative and raise the money privately find a way to live within the appropriations they already have, they always look to the government because well, "that's governments role, right" (or is it?)


So many times I hear mayors, councilman etc on the radio or in the paper saying they need "funding" to do things. Most of these paper pushing pseudo projects probably dont have a payback or only have a payback for a select few; that is why there are no private investors interested in these 'projects'

anyways, Im rambling, but most of us on RPF believe in smaller goverment, but smaller government starts locally by talking to local politicians and telling them to quit seeking "governement grants" and "federal funding" and telling local citizens that we arent on the federal gravy train and can solve these issues ourselves