RSS Feed |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Report criticizes Paul on earmark record
In fact, he has even garnered a reputation as being "Dr. No" for voting against just about any and all government spending. That is why it is surprising that the congressman scores so poorly on a report by the freemarket and fiscally conservative Club for Growth on what they call their "2007 RePORK Card." It turns out that "Dr. No" has actually been saying "yes" quite a bit lately. "Yes" to a prison museum in Kansas, "yes" to an aquarium in South Carolina, "yes" to the Houston Zoo, and, among other projects, "yes" to the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission in Chicago. There is an Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission in Chicago, but there is no actual Abraham Lincoln National Airport - yet. Overall, Paul only scored a 29 percent on the group's 2007 "RePORK Card" measuring how each congressman voted on 50 amendments to strip earmarks that it considers to be "pork" - or unnecessary spending - from the 2008 appropriations bills. That means that of the votes he cast, he voted to keep 71 percent of the earmarks that were challenged and he voted to reject only 29 percent of them. The congressman has not only been drawing attention of late for voting for other congressmen's earmarks, however. On Aug. 6, The Wall Street Journal reported that Paul this year alone has requested 65 earmarks totaling more than $400 million. Paul's presidential campaign Web site states that "real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending. "But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don't cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future - and yours." Paul was far from being the congressman with the worst record on the "RePORK Card," however. Of the 433 congressmen who were scored, he placed 106th. Of the 22 congressmen who scored a 98 percent or better - meaning that they either voted against all or all but one of the challenged earmarks - 21 (or 95 percent) were Republicans, including all 16 of the congressmen who scored 100 percent. The lone Democrat to vote to strike all but one of the contested earmarks from the appropriations bills was Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Only two of Texas' 32 congressmen were included in that group of anti-earmarkers - Jeb Hensarling of Dallas and Mac Thornberry of Clarendon. Both Republicans voted to strike every contested earmark from the budget. Of the 239 congressmen who scored a 0 percent, 2 percent or 3 percent on the survey - meaning they voted to keep either all or all but one of the 50 contested earmarks - 203 (or 85 percent) were Democrats. The 36 congressmen who compose the remaining 15 percent of those who scored a 3 percent or lower on the report were Republicans. Of the 12 Texas congressmen who scored 3 percent or lower on the report, all were Democrats. There are some interesting trends in the report, also. Freshmen Democratic congressmen are just as much in favor of earmarks as the more senior members of their party - they both had an average score of 2 percent. But the Republican caucus appears to be getting more fiscally conservative. Freshmen Republican congressmen had an average score of 78 percent. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress, overall, scored a mere 43 percent on the report. According to the Executive Branch's Office of Management and Budget Web site, "earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. "Congress includes earmarks in appropriations bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills." Not all earmarks are necessarily considered "pork," however. Citizens Against Government Waste, another economically conservative group with similar aims as the Club for Growth - but which is more narrowly focused on government spending - defines "pork" as being earmarks with seven characteristics: they are "requested by only one chamber of Congress;" they are "not specifically authorized;" they are "not competitively awarded;" they are "not requested by the president;" they "greatly exceed the president's budget request or the previous year's funding;" they are "not the subject of congressional hearings;" or they "serve only a local or special interest." Paul voted on only 41 of the 50 amendments that the Club's "RePORK Card" scored. He voted 29 times to spend the money that the earmark requested, and he voted 12 times to strip the earmark from the 2008 appropriations bills. The 29 contested earmarks that Paul voted to keep, as described by the Club for Growth, were:
Paul also voted against three other amendments that the Club for Growth scored. One tried to strike 148 earmarks from an appropriations bill, one aimed to strike "numerous" earmarks from a bill, and yet another proposed that all earmarks be removed. "Dr. Paul's position is not that earmarks are bad or are the problem," said Paul's communications director Rachel Mills. "Cutting earmarks does not cut spending," a contention that Mills claims that anti-earmarkers agree with. "The answer is to stop spending on unconstitutional programs, reassess what government is doing and ask it to do less," Mills said. "The Constitution gives Congress the purse strings. Congress is elected by the people and entrusted to make spending decisions. They are unconstitutionally delegating many of those decisions to bureaucrats." "Congressman Paul votes against all spending legislation on final passage," Mills said. Most spending legislation passes by overwhelming margins since they fund all aspects of the government, so Paul's vote against spending legislation once he has voted to keep an earmark in the spending bill usually ends up being more or less a symbolic gesture. Most budget battles are fought over the size of the budget and total appropriations as well as which appropriations should or should not be stripped from or included in legislation before final passage. The 12 contested earmarks that Paul voted to eliminate, but that passed anyway were:
The Club for Growth is an organization that agitates for lower taxes and less government spending, among other policies that it believes will grow the economy. It styles itself as a "national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom" and that "promote(s) public policies that promote economic growth, primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
)