Guess Who Likes Earmarks?
Those of us who rail against earmarks and pork-barrel politics argue in part that the resultant spending usually goes to functions that have nothing to do with federal authority. These usually serve as incumbency protection efforts, attempts to drown the district in enough cash that it pressures voters to retain incumbents, in order to maintain the gravy train. One might think that a more libertarian incumbent would eschew such grubby tactics -- but the Houston Chronicle's investigation into Texas earmarks proves that theory incorrect (h/t: CQ reader Kirk H):
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, the Libertarian-leaning contender for the Republican presidential nomination, long has waged war on the widespread federal spending he views as outside constitutional boundaries.But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function. ...
Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.
"I don't think they should take our money in the first place," he said. "But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."
The way it works in Paul's office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair "for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk."
I missed this yesterday; Betsy Newmark didn't, and she notes the irony. Ron Paul and his legion of supporters routinely tell us that Paul is the only real conservative in the presidential race, dedicated to a return to a constitutional federal government. He will fight against federal involvement in any function outside of their clearly delineated tasks, as Paul has said on a number of occasions, including the presidential debates.
Obviously, Paul doesn't put our money where his mouth is. He uses the same tired explanation as everyone in Congress regarding earmarks -- "Everyone else is doing it, and why shouldn't my constituents benefit?" It's precisely that kind of reasoning that keeps earmarks a lively trade for influence peddlers and government expansionists, and Paul's enthusiastic engagement in that process perpetuates it.
Paul is far from the worst offender when it comes to earmarks. In fact, a fellow Republican, Jerry Culberson, wants $1 billion in earmarks for his district, a rather astonishing sum that would cost taxpayers almost a half-trillion dollars if replicated in every district, or about 13% of the overall federal budget. However, for a man who regularly expounds on unconstitutional federal intrusions, this record seems rather hypocritical.
UPDATE: Commenter Buckwheat offers this counter-argument:
In a nutshell, Paul only requests these earmarks *after* money has been set aside for a bill, so his requests don't increase the overall size of these bills. And he usually votes against them anyway.
Well, I thought Paul's entire argument as a Constitutionalist was that those monies don't belong there in the first place, and they're going to functions that don't belong at the federal level. Shouldn't he stop encouraging that kind of spending? As for the second part of the argument, it seems very hypocritical to initiate earmarks, get them included in spending bills, and then vote against the bill when Paul knows it will pass over his belated objections.
If Paul wants to end earmarks, he should stop creating them, and encourage his colleagues to do the same.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (27)
Posted by Buckwheat | July 3, 2007 4:04 PM
Ed,
You didn't research this enough before posting, as legions of PaulBots will be pointing out to you on this comments board in the coming hours.
In a nutshell, Paul only requests these earmarks *after* money has been set aside for a bill, so his requests don't increase the overall size of these bills. And he usually votes against them anyway.
You can Google your way to more details (this Ron-Paul's-just-like-the-rest-of-them arguments has been trotted out before), or just wait for the PaulBots. They're coming, I assure you.
And one other thing -- Ron Paul's going to be the next president of these here United States. Not kidding.
Posted by For Enforcement | July 3, 2007 4:11 PM
I have nothing against Paul, but he is so well unknown that the likelihood of him getting the nom. is fairly slim, I would guess. However as to earmarks. I think there should be no such thing. All money requested should have to be on one specific bill requested by that member with his name attached, so there will be no secrets and back room deals.
Posted by Captain Ed | July 3, 2007 4:14 PM
Buckwheat,
That's a pretty convenient argument. He proposes dozens of earmarks, and then votes against the bills in which they reside when he knows they'll pass anyway. If he hates earmarks, then he should stop proposing them.
Posted by Tom | July 3, 2007 4:15 PM
Doesn't the first comment mean the PaulBots are already hear?
Besides, taking money that has already been "set aside" still undercuts your point against taking the money in the first place. (i.e. Ron Paul is just like the rest of them)
Posted by Fluffy | July 3, 2007 4:32 PM
"That's a pretty convenient argument. He proposes dozens of earmarks, and then votes against the bills in which they reside when he knows they'll pass anyway. If he hates earmarks, then he should stop proposing them."
That's absurd. If the rest of the Congress wishes to prevent his nefarious plan whereby he can propose earmarks without taking responsibility for the spending bill as a whole, all they have to do is vote against the spending bill, too.
The Congress passes appropriations by voting for the appropriation bill. Period. The procedural garbage that comes before that vote simply doesn't matter. If you vote against the appropriations bill, it's not your spending. There's really no other way to look at it.
Posted by Buckwheat | July 3, 2007 4:39 PM
For Enforcement:
RP is getting better-known all the time and we have six months before the Iowa Caucus. His meetup.com, YouTube, Facebook and Eventful numbers are all higher than any other Republican candidates' -- there is something transformative happening under the radar with Paul's ideas and campaign, and it is primed to hit the mainstream in the coming weeks.
Ed -- it isn't a "convenient argument," it's logical and moral. RP doesn't think congress should spend X number of dollars on project Y, and argues forcefully against it (that's why they call him Dr. No -- one congressman said whenever there's a 434-1 vote, he always knows who the 1 is). BUT, if congress does decide to spend X dollars on Y, Paul has an obligation to his constituents to submit their requests if reasonable. And then, as I said, he usually votes against the bills anyway.
I don't think Paul can honestly be equated with pork-freaks like Rep. Don Young or any of the other "Gang of 535". He is different from them, much different.
Google him with an open mind, Ed, you might be surprised at what you find. I sure was.
Posted by James I. Hymas | July 3, 2007 4:51 PM
Cap'n Ed: If Paul wants to end earmarks, he should stop creating them, and encourage his colleagues to do the same
I don't know. Disagreement with a law doesn't provide carte blanche to ignore it, and Paul's only applying the flip side of this argument.
I see nothing at all hypocritical about using a system you're paying for, even when you disagree with that system's existence. I suspect that most posters here will take advantage of Medicaid & Social Security, even if opposed to these systems, until such time as they are abolished.
Posted by kb | July 3, 2007 5:28 PM
I have to say, Ed, that I agree with most of your commenters. I work for the state because it has intruded on the market for higher education. If I believe public support for higher education is too large, or even that it is wrong, why should I be the only one to suffer the consequences by relinquishing my position in a state university? Doesn't the state then punish me twice?
It seems like arguing that someone who thinks public education is out of control should have to pull their kids from public school and put them in private schools, but continue to pay taxes to the school district. Since the poor cannot afford to pull their children from public schools, are they not allowed to rail against public school failure?
Posted by maidmarion | July 3, 2007 5:53 PM
Cap't Ed,
Have to concur with James and kb on this. My libertarian cousin works as a research expert for a Washington agricultural lobbying firm. While she doesn't agree that the government should be earmarking money for agricultural research projects, she figures that since the money is going to be spent anyway then she could at least play a constructive role in trying to spend it wisely.
Posted by Captain Ed | July 3, 2007 6:04 PM
King,
Do you really believe that the state government should have *no* investment in higher education? I don't think you do. You may think it doesn't spend it well, or that it spends too much of it -- but that's not the same thing as insisting that Minnesota has absolutely no business funding universities.
Paul, on the other hand, spends every debate demanding that the federal government limit itself to the strictest reading of the Constitution and promises to enact that program if elected President. Why should we believe that when he has obviously not done much to that effect as a Congressman, and in the case of earmarks, worked in the opposite direction?
Posted by The Plumber | July 3, 2007 6:13 PM
I'll be supporting Tancredo or Hunter, but Cap'n Ed's hit piece on Paul is pretty weak (and disappointing). But it's typical. Most of the writers over at Townhall make the same attempts.
The problem with Paul is that he, more than any, exposes the soft underbelly of the GOP and conservatism. Control is control, and it matters little if the group doing the controlling has an "R" or a "D" after their name.
Posted by The Plumber | July 3, 2007 6:36 PM
Do you really believe that the state government should have *no* investment in higher education? I don't think you do. You may think it doesn't spend it well, or that it spends too much of it -- but that's not the same thing as insisting that Minnesota has absolutely no business funding universities.
Thanks to the Tenth Amendment, states can spend their money any way they want. Some states will spend more, some will spend less. Paul will advocate for less. Point is, more choices, more freedom.
Right now, the federal government subsidizes the education industry to the tune of $120B per year. This has caused double-digit inflation, completely removed accountability, and has turned the university system into a monolithic mouthpiece for leftists.
Posted by Sergei | July 3, 2007 6:48 PM
Here is Ron Paul's words about earmarks
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.
from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html
Posted by Athos | July 3, 2007 7:25 PM
The problem with the 'defense' being used by Paul (earmarks are funded from spending levels that have already been determined - therefore the spending level remains the same) is nothing but a move of the goalpost.
Federal agencies and departments take the time and effort in a budget process to define the funds that they need to achieve their goals, continue their tasks, and implement new initiatives that they need to do to fulfill their job. These are the basis of the spending requests. When funds are allocated based on this (which they are supposed to be) - the spending allocation is defined. However, when abusers of the earmark process then start defining special 'pet' projects using their earmarks - it's correct that more money isn't given that agency and department to cover what they need to operate plus what they need to do for the earmark. Instead, that agency / department now has to determine what project and or initiative that they need to do to fulfill their mission has to be cut in order to free up their funds in order to cover the earmark.
Example - DOT needs $300M to fund the development of a new bridge in your home state. Congressman Pinhead from another state tosses in a $300M earmark for a series of rest centers every 10 miles on a highway in his district which a local contractor has been asking him to fund. (The contractor just donated $100K to Pinhead's PAC.) DOT now has to cancel that needed new bridge because its obligated by the earmark to use $300M of the funds for Pinhead's rest stops.
DOT's budget is the same - but it can't do what its professionals decided was a priority - building the bridge.....it has to spend it on rest stops courtesy of Pinhead's earmark.
Wrong is still Wrong....and I agree with Ed, if Paul was really principled, he wouldn't use earmarks.
Posted by Warren Bonesteel | July 3, 2007 7:38 PM
So...as conservatives and libertarians, instead of eliminating pork...we're defending pork...while all the while we decry such things as pork-barrel spending.
...because we like pork.
I see...
From a Constitutional perspective, from an Original Intent perspective, even from a Federalist perspective, let alone from a rhetorical or polemical perspective, the position is indefensible. I don't care what yer name is or who you think ya are.
...bitch and whine about big government and then allow big government to buy you off, and thus, divide you, while it remains in total and complete control, is what yer doin'.
Inna meantime, you argue, indefensibly, about who among you gets what portion of the leftover pig ears....and over who among you is allowed to add pork to which bill...
...then y'all sit back and complain about corruption in government...
Hmmm... Hypocrisy doesn't mean what it used to mean, I reckon. I don't suppose narcissism or logical fallacy means what they used to mean, either...
My, the times they are a changin'...ain't they?
Posted by hapmoorii | July 3, 2007 8:20 PM
I'm also in the position of benefiting somewhat indirectly from earmarks by way of a couple clients. While I would prefer to see that system eliminated and a return to private fundraising, it's my opinion that if the government is going to take the money and spend the money, we might as well try not to waste the money.
Let's look at it another way. I'd like to see social security eliminated, but if they're going to force me to pay, you can be sure I'm going to collect my benefits when the time comes. There's very little difference between that position and the one Paul takes.
Is it hypocritical? I don't think so. We have our ideal, and we have our reality. It's going to be a while before the two meet...if they ever do, but we can keep trying.
Posted by Donal | July 3, 2007 8:56 PM
Hypocrite- a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion; or a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
A man who spends all his time condemning the federal government for spending too much of tax-payer money while at the same time requesting federal funds to renovate a theater (among other things) is the definition of a hypocrite.
Posted by Warren Bonesteel | July 3, 2007 9:20 PM
Lots of Appeals to Common Practice, here, ain't they?
...we won't even talk about begging the question, assumption and inductive biases and such as alla that...
What's the Constitution say about such things, boys and girls...and what're ya gonna do about it? That's the bottom line. ...something about enumerated powers, I think...
Posted by Buckwheat | July 4, 2007 1:51 AM
Hypocrite- a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion; or a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Google Ron Paul. If you really feel he's a hypocrite, vote accordingly. Frankly, I can't see any honest person accusing him of hypocrisy.
Posted by Warren Bonesteel | July 4, 2007 3:44 AM
Syllogisms are so much fun to play with, aren't they?
...especially when they're categorical...and invalid. ;O)
Posted by Buckwheat | July 4, 2007 4:28 AM
Paul, on the other hand, spends every debate demanding that the federal government limit itself to the strictest reading of the Constitution and promises to enact that program if elected President. Why should we believe that when he has obviously not done much to that effect as a Congressman,...
Really Ed, do yourself a favor and spend an evening on YouTube, Wikipedia and Google with Ron Paul. I mean no offense, but the above paragraph is laughable and shows you don't know the first thing about the subject matter.
Posted by swabjockey05 | July 4, 2007 6:04 AM
Many of you people bashing Paul about "pork” sound like the Pharisees from the bible...
If there is ANYONE in our Congress who consistently defends the letter of the Constitution against the Statist Socialists...it is Ron Paul. But you guys say he likes "pork".
The great number of Pharisees among you are making me seriously consider voting for the most Socialistic candidates I can find in every election. The system is obviously broken. Perhaps my best recourse is to endeavor to elect the most corrupt socialists I can...maybe that way, I can help accelerate the inevitable point where the broken system comes crumbling down.
Posted by Buckwheat | July 4, 2007 8:07 AM
Athos, in your example above: what if the $300 million would be best spent, if it must be spent, in Paul's district? There's nothing immoral in a congressman trying to get some of his constituents' money back if his first line of defense, as Paul's always is, is that we shouldn't be spending the money in the first place.
Again, this attempt to smear Paul as a pork-barrel congresscritter can only be made with sincerity by people who haven't bothered to research the man. He is that rarest of birds: a completely honest and principled politician.
Google him if you don't believe me.
Posted by Warren Bonesteel | July 4, 2007 4:02 PM
Saying that Mr. Paul is now a pork-barrel Congress-critter is a bit like saying that a coffee drinker...drinks coffee...
Whatever the coffee drinkers' reasoning and justification, he is still a drinker of coffee. To make such a statement is not to "smear" him.
If Mr. Paul is "earmarking" federal funds to his district, he is, by definition, a pork-barrel politician.
In view of his many public statements against such practices, he is also, by definition, either a liar or a hypocrite, and thus, no better than any other politician who is presently in Washington, in spite of his and his supporters claims to the contrary.
In any case, such behavior is not supportable by use of Constitutional guidelines or principles, which Mr. Paul also claims to support.
To make such statements of fact is neither libel nor slander...nor can they honestly or rationally be construed as a "smear."
Believe whatever you wish. You are perfectly free to do so.
Posted by Warren Bonesteel | July 4, 2007 4:07 PM
Saying that Mr. Paul is now a pork-barrel Congress-critter is a bit like saying that a coffee drinker...drinks coffee...
Whatever the coffee drinkers' reasoning and justification, he is still a drinker of coffee. To make such a statement is not to "smear" him.
If Mr. Paul is "earmarking" federal funds to his district, he is, by definition, a pork-barrel politician.
In view of his many public statements against such practices, he is also, by definition, either a liar or a hypocrite, and thus, no better than any other politician who is presently in Washington, in spite of his and his supporters claims to the contrary.
In any case, such behavior is not supportable by use of Constitutional guidelines or principles, which Mr. Paul also claims to support.
To make such statements of fact is neither libel nor slander...nor can they honestly or rationally be construed as a "smear."
Believe whatever you wish. You are perfectly free to do so.
Posted by James I. Hymas | July 4, 2007 8:28 PM
Mr. Paul, if he is aware of this thread, must feel very gratified that neither the Cap'n nor "Warren Bonesteel" can even attempt to name a candidate with a better track record.
Sling the mud, boys, if that's the kind of country you want!
Posted by dixie68 | July 4, 2007 10:38 PM
The old saying, "If it is going to be spent anyway, my district should get its part," is inherently wrong. If it is wrong to have ear-marks, it does not matter which one requests them. They are ALL wrong. Out of the 535 men and women we have elected to represent us, I do not think there are more than a total of five who actually give a damn about our country. That includes Mr. Paul.