August 8, 2007

Not Ron Paul’s to Give

Posted by Adam Graham in : Pork

The pure volume of Ron Paul’s pork barrel spending requests calls into question his operating commitment to reducing government (hat tip: Club for Growth)

After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”

What they’re trying to do is expose the process of pork spending to the light of day. But you got to appreciate Dr. Paul being a purist to accuse the reformers of dishonesty while bringing the money home for his district the Shrimp industry with taxpayer dollars.

Apparently, the case for it all is like what Bubba said in forest Gump, “Anyway, like I was sayin’, shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sautee it. Dey’s uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that’s about it.”

That ought to be a Ron Paul campaign video and they should juxtapose it with the “not yours to give” story that he posted on his website in which a Congressman Davy Crockett receives a tongue lashing from a constituent:

“The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

Apparently, there’s funding for shrimp marketing authorized somewhere in there, or else the money the Congressman requested was “not his to give.”

2 Comments

  1. Comment by William Lawson

    Here’s a letter to the editor I submitted to the Wall Street Journal in response to their story that you quote above. Surprisingly, it hasn’t been published yet:

    Date: August 6, 2007 6:59:18 PM EDT
    To: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
    Subject: The Gadfly’s Earmarks

    Editors:

    One would expect the first Wall Street Journal article featuring presidential candidate Ron Paul’s name in the title to comment intelligently on the healthy debate that has ensued as a result of his candidacy. You could have chosen his consistent support for Constitutional limits on the size and scope of federal government, the contrast between those limits and our current economic and foreign policies, or perhaps even his support for personal liberty and free markets that places him beyond the mainstream of current Republican politics.

    Instead, we were given an outdated and dismissive article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep) commenting on earmarks requested for Rep. Paul’s Texas district. First, you prejudice your perspective by labeling Rep. Paul a “libertarian gadfly”. Next, this information is by no means recent. You are rehashing information first released by Rep. Paul in June, and that has been widely dissected in online media since then (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/06/29/ron-pauls-bringing-home-the-bacon/). Finally, your attempt to seek clarification from Rep. Paul’s office ignored the most obvious source: the congressman himself. Should you avail yourself to this modern wonder known as the Internet (or “Internets”, as it is occasionally referenced by politicians), you would discover that Ron Paul specifically addressed the hypocrisy of the current system in his Texas Straight Talk constituent bulletin of June 18:

    “Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

    The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills.”

    (Courtesy of http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=836)

    Rep. Paul’s assertion that “eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats” is an indictment of the current process, not the Congressman. It is unfortunate that your article was not able to identify the systemic issue, and instead was only able to characterize a truncated response from his office as “worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd”. It appears that enquiring readers would be better off consulting Rep. Paul’s extensive record of published letters and speeches (indexed at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org), than relying on your characterization of his actions.

  2. Comment by Adam Graham

    Congressman Paul misses the essential point that the appropriations bills are so large because members of Congress can use them as slush funds to shove in various things.

    Also to pretend the debate is about getting of earmarks altogether is dishonest. A leader of the earmark reform movement, Congressman John Campbell (R-CA.) laid out a 10-point plan:

    Members must make public and fully disclose all earmark requests when they are submitted.

    Put every earmark in the text of the bill.

    The bill should fully disclose all earmarks with the requesting member(s), amounts, recipients and purpose at least 1 week before any bill containing earmarks is brought to the floor.

    All earmarks must be available for discussion at an open Congressional hearing.

    All earmarks for programs must be previously authorized by Congress.

    Earmarks must serve a federal interest and/or have a federal nexus.

    No earmarks outside of a member’s own state.

    No earmarks to private entities without a competitive bidding process.

    No earmark can be added or increased in a conference committee to an amount greater than the amount passed in either the House or the Senate version of the bill.

    The dollar amount of any earmarks reduced by amendment or committee should go towards debt/deficit reduction and not be reallocated into other spending.

    This doesn’t had the decision over to bureaucrats as you say, rather it gives Congress a reason to behave for fear of public exposure. Speaking of which, where is Shrimp Advertising found in the Constitution?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.