More Omnibus Earmarks
Oh, there is nothing like lifting the curtain in Congress, because it can spur all kinds of reaction from voters. That was proven again yesterday on anything related to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
The dustup all began when I was searching for House Republicans who had earmarks in the $1.2 trillion Senate Omnibus budget bill that Democrats finally unveiled on Tuesday.
Most GOP lawmakers have refused to request earmarks, so it was interesting when I found four Republicans in the House who had gone against that: Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
Paul had eight earmarks totaling around $8 million, so I sent out a message on Twitter that said:
“WELL WELL WELL – Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has 8 earmarks worth over $8 million in Senate Omnibus budget bill.”
Judging by the reaction from Paul supporters, you might have thought that I had just publicly accused him of legislative corruption.
“Nice ‘drive-by’ attempt to smear Ron Paul,” wrote one person to me on Twitter.
“I am a little disappointed in your reporting on Paul’s earmarks,” wrote Jerry in an e-mail, who criticized me for Tweeting out my note on Paul without noting that Paul routinely asks for earmarks, but then votes against those bills.
I will let you determine if putting home state earmarks in bills and then voting against the legislation is okay. That’s not for me to rule on.
But it is still newsworthy when you realize that he’s one of only four GOP House members to have some home-state spending in this measure.
So, what does Rep. Paul have in this Senate Omnibus? Would you call any of this pork?
* $1 million for the “Gulf States Consumer Education Program”
* $1.5 million for “Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training” at Texas State University
* $2 million for the “Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program” run by Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership
* $474,000 for an Army Corps of Engineers review of Freeport Harbor in Texas
* $897,000 for Army Corps work on the Matagorda Ship Channel in Texas
* $350,000 for a “Nursing Simulation Training Center” at Brazosport College in Texas
* $750,000 for a “Telehealth Resource Learning Center” at the Univ. of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston
* $1.25 million for “Port of Galveston Transit Terminal Parking” project
That’s almost $8 million on the nose for eight different projects.
Leave me a comment on these projects – are they a big deal? Is it something that no reporter should worry about?
As for the overall Omnibus, it still is not officially on the floor in the Senate, as Senators are working now on the START nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
It won’t surprise me to see a test vote on the Omnibus set for the weekend. We’ll see then if Democrats can bring over enough Republicans and get 60 votes on the measure.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
21 comments Add your comment
Paul's 8 Earmarks in Omnibus Bill Worth around $8M | Barvity
December 16th, 2010
2:30 am
[...] more @ Blogs.AJC [...]
Dhraga
December 16th, 2010
8:03 am
Looks like pork to me. It is directed funds. I thought the whole point of this exercise was to eliminate directed funds for a while until we got the financial house in order.
spoutinghorn
December 16th, 2010
8:22 am
Rep Paul also voted for Michelle Obama’s regulate all food in every public school bill, because “it’s too important to leave to parents.”
Teresa
December 16th, 2010
8:40 am
Whether these or any earmarks are “worthy” expenditures or not is a subjective question, and one that is irrelevant to the larger issue of whether the practice of funding projects through earmarks is ethical. I maintain it is not. Even more disingenuous is appeasing special interests by including requests to fund their projects, then voting against the containing bill knowing that Dems are likely to approve it. This game has gone on for too long. While I greatly appreciate people like Jamie Dupree making it difficult for these looting politicians to hide their duplicitous behavior, in the end we must look to the voting public for the ultimate solution.
I don’t doubt that many Republicans were elected last month simply because of Democrats’ fiscal mismanagement. The Omnibus and tax compromise earmarks should be like a sucker punch to those who thought simply voting Republican was going to right our country (no pun intended).
ralph
December 16th, 2010
8:46 am
Hypocracy.
Let’s Help Governor Deal! (No, really.) — Peach Pundit
December 16th, 2010
8:56 am
[...] That $454 million we borrowed from the feds? How about we not pay that back? They’d only waste it and besides, they can just print [...]
Matt
December 16th, 2010
9:15 am
Thank you, Jamie, for opening folks’ eyes. Ron Paul’s behavior is inexcusable.
In my opinion, unless a given project will have a direct impact on the commerce between two or more states, I don’t think such a project should even be in the domain of the House or Senate. Lower federal income taxes and stop spending money in this way.
Newbie Jim
December 16th, 2010
9:24 am
Good work again Jamie for revealing earmarks..(.I think that Congresss feels that as long as money is spent, they need to get money back to their states…but they need to stop taking the money and leave it in the state where it belongs)…but you should also give more credence in Paul’s habit of placing earmarks in bills that he votes against, knowing that they’ll pass but looking like he votes against earmarks…I think I’ve heard that about him and others… Paul Singer from Roll Call now on Cspan talking about earmarks.
Frank Liebert
December 16th, 2010
9:28 am
(A) Earmarks are unconstitutional (B) Regardless of the necessity of the expenditure. We’re BROKE……….. I NEED a new truck,but I’m broke and so is my PRINTING PRESS ! ! !
Russ
December 16th, 2010
9:32 am
Looks like most of it is pork. I would not consider port related money to be necessarily pork since it is to facilitate trade and interstate commerce.
First Responder
December 16th, 2010
9:40 am
The “Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training” at Texas State University is a police officer training program that trains first responders-not SWAT teams- to respond to shootings like Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, and the terrorist events in Mumbai India. The “ALERRT” program uses earmarked money to deliver this training for free to police officers who would not be able to afford this training. The civilian police officers at Fort Hood had been trained by ALERRT (Kim Munley and Mark Todd) and they credited this training with their ability to stop Hasan before he murdered more victims.
Sounds like pork to me! We sure don’t want to spend federal money on training our first responders to save lives.
People there are “bridges to no where” in earmarks but there are also very legitimate projects that will receive no other funding if not for this type of discretionary spending.
Jim Jinkins
December 16th, 2010
9:42 am
Interesting stuff on earmarks in the Omnibus budget bill. I looked at http://is.gd/iKI18 and found everything for Mississippi labeled for both Cochran and Wicker. Is there an on-line way to distinguish between them? Also, is there a checkable definition of ‘earmark’?
lpm
December 16th, 2010
10:11 am
Please explain the difference between a ’soft’ earmark’ and a ‘hard’ earmark. As I understand it, a hard earmark ADDS spending to a bill, whereas a soft earmark directs spending ALREADY in a bill – meaning that without such an earmark, the total amount of the bill would not decrease, instead the executive branch would get to decide where/how to direct the money. As I understand also, Ron Paul’s so-called ‘earmarks’ are of the kind which do NOT add spending… this is a big difference.
Adam Self
December 16th, 2010
10:12 am
I think you’re right on this one Mr. Dupree, seems to me people are upset at you for reporting facts. I was wondering if you’ve got an opinion as to why Paul would ask for 8 mil in state spending knowing he’s likely to vote against the bill.
Chip
December 16th, 2010
10:12 am
Federal money should not be used for projects that benefit single states. Leave it to the state to do that.
Gary-Florida
December 16th, 2010
10:32 am
I thing that if you are against ear-marks, you should not put in for them. It makes you lose credibility if you are against something but you are willing to put them in. I like some of the thing that Ron stand for but I do not like this. I do think that it makes a difference when Repub. put them in. If ear-marks were put in before the election then that was before they heard “We the People” speak in November. They now can do something about ear-marks and vote them down, (vote the bill down) It would show that the Repub. are at least listing do you think? I really enjoy your twitter comments Jemmy, keep it up. I keep informed by your tweets.
Mike
December 16th, 2010
1:09 pm
Do you even know what an earmark is? If Congress didn’t ask for earmarks, the Executive branch would control spending. Earmarks don’t change spending. Congress has a duty to request earmarks that their constituents have asked for. The problem is not earmarks, the problem is spending. Ron Paul has taken the most honorable path on this matter. If Congress didn’t have any earmarks, the President would control where the money goes. Is that what you really want? In a Constitutional Republic, Congress is in charge of the purse strings, not the President, thus earmarks are ok, it is th e SPENDING that is the problem. Earmarks aren’t spending, they are just allocating already approved spending. Do some research people! Ron Paul is an honest man!
mule.ear
December 16th, 2010
1:17 pm
Yeah, Ron Paul is my hero, and I’m probably as rabid as any ‘Paultard’ out there.
But, here is a link to his take on earmarks. It might night hurt to read/listen to it.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-less-government/
Minnesota Chris
December 16th, 2010
2:53 pm
Sigh…more angst over earmarks. Ron Paul explained earmarks in this 2009 article (how quaint that the debt was “only” $11 trillion at the time!):
Earmarks seem to be the hot topic this week, and as a fiscal conservative I am dismayed so many people deliberately distort the earmarking process and grandstand to make political points. It is an easy thing to do with earmarks. It takes a little more time and patience to grasp the reality of what earmarks really are.
To be sure, if earmarks were the driving force behind explosive government spending as some have been led to believe, that would be a good reason for all the fuss. The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.
Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.
The real issue is that the overall budget is too big, by far, which is why I always vote against it. But attacking the 1 percent that was earmarked solves nothing. The whole issue is a distraction from the real problems we face, which are that the Federal Government will absorb over 1/3 of our country’s GDP this year and taxpayers are forced to fork over more than half their income to fund government at all levels. On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen. The recent increases in bailouts, government spending and money creation is going to hobble our economy for decades. We must curb the government’s appetite severely if this country is ever to thrive again. The noise over “earmarks” is a red herring and a distraction from the real issue of uncommitted spending.
It is time to attack the entirety of government spending. We especially need a full account of the activities of the Federal Reserve that spends and creates trillions of dollars with no meaningful oversight. This is a huge problem that needs immediate attention.
Source: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1673&Itemid=69
Steamboat Bob
December 16th, 2010
3:19 pm
What a lame defense Rep. Paul puts up for his earmarks while he poses as a fiscal conservative! The real problem is that earmarked projects get funded while other, often more urgent, needs must compete for the remaining money. Earmarked projects don’t compete fairly. Members of the Appropriations Committees have the inside track on earmarks. That’s one of the reasons for the scramble to get on those Committees. Typically the President has no choice but to accept the earmarks because there is no time for a veto fight, Congress having waited until the last minute to appropriate money to avoid disrupting important programs.
ready forchange
December 16th, 2010
3:33 pm
We need $350,000 for Nursing Simulation in Nashville and another $350,000 for Nursing Simulation in Birmingham. Do I detect a bit of discrimination in federal funding?