"Forest, do you think that shrimp is a major industry in Ron Paul's district?"
Posted on 08/06/2007 3:09:22 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It's in a subscribers only link at the Wall Street Journal. The Congressman wants $8,000,000.00 to pay for marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund research into shrimp-fishing.
These are but two of the Congressman's 65 earmarks sought thus far this year to the tune of $400,000,000.00. HIs chief spokesman pulled a Tom DeLay and said
"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."
Of course the Congressman in question is the patron saint of both the constitutionally pure crowd and the black helicopter crowd — Congressman Ron Paul.
PAGING RON PAUL SUPPORTERS: Please cite the Article, Section, and clause of the Constitution that gives Congress express authority to fund the marketing of wild American shrimp.
[UPDATE:] Holy Cow! Look at this porker. Unfreakingbelieveable. And people buy his "I'm a purist" crap?
Ping!
“Free Range Shrimp”..............
Rut roh!
wouldn’t that make him King of Shrimp?
Huh?#@*???
Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sautee it. There's, um, shrimp kebabs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo, pan fried, deep fried, stir fried. There's pineapple shrimp and lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich... That's, that's about it.And now, you can't market it without government assistance.
That would come under the Freedom to Arm Bears claws......
Here are more of Libertarian Ron Paul earmarks:
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
I’m sure the Paulestinians will try to tell us that the Constitution authorizes earmarks for shrimp marketing.
Dr. Yes.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! ;)
what the heck is wild American shrimp?
Do you have any Wylers?
Needed here.
I wonder which Article of the Constitution this one is under...? ;)
Ah it’s so nice to see FReepers knee-jerking hysterically rather than getting the facts.
I’m guessing it’s shrimp caught in the Gulf of Mexico, rather than grown on the shrimp-farm.
Isn’t that a city, county or at last resort a state issue? Why would big government need to get involved with that? I guess Ron Paul really likes big brother involvment after all, as long as it is in his backyard providing money. Hypocrite.
Show your work. Be specific.
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.What do you mean by, "facts?"
Would that be the Aunt Edna Theater? The same one that ended up in a lawn chair on top of Clark Griswolds car?
All of the earmarks are submitted to Paul by his constituents, and he forwards them to the appropriations committee. It's his job as a Congressman to consider them....
DOES HE VOTE FOR THEM IN THE END THOUGH? TELL ME, DOES HE VOTE FOR THEM IN THE FINAL BUDGET???
Hyenas have more principles than all of you clowns on this thread.
Do you have the facts? Are these not his earmarks?
I, personally, would like to know where my hard-earned money is going.
Crickets chriping in the background...
He submits the earmarks but still doesn't vote for them.
Try removing the #1 from your name and listen.
So what? The man is a politician and wants to be noticed for his generosity. He is only doing his job in anticipation for the next election.
Uh, you guys are the ones hyperventilating over someone who isn't going to win anyway, not me.
How about he is one of ten congressmen that have actually disclosed them. How about that he votes no on the pork barrel every time.
How many times do you have to hear it. But it makes for good FUD.
June 18, 2007
Last week’s big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
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 necessary 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. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
How about a subsidy for farm raised buffalo and venison, it's healthier than shrimp, and I'm sure they can raise them in Texas.
These are his earmarks. But he still votes against them in the final budget.
I, personally, would like to know where my hard-earned money is going.
ROFL. So you have no problem with Ducan Hunter's pork-barrel or the Bush administration expanding the federal government as a whole.
Ron Paul is a politician.
He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. He’ll probably vote no on the appropriation bills as they come up. His constituents get their voice heard by getting the earmarks requested regardless if they are in the bill or not. He gets re-elected.
I have no doubt that he doesn’t like the unconstitutional spending but he figures if someone is going to get the pork it might as well be the 14th District of Texas.
What's the difference between the "fact" that you contend he won't vote for them and, say, "speculation?"
Sounds like a plan. Lord alone knows but he's somehow managed to buffalo a noisy handful hereabouts. ;)
There is no rule that says he must submit any earmarks.
But he does, and then hypocritically votes against the bill (that is sure to pass). Thereby maintaining his ideological purity, at least amongst the true believers.
Imagine the John Travolta gang from “Grease” in pink shells with tails.
....Now that image is sparking all sorts of weird thoughts....
BUMPED for the truth.
I have a problem with all pork. Why would you assume I am for Duncan Hunter because I asked you a question?
And, submitting earmarks you have no intention of voting for just to look good for constituents is duplicitous IMO.
what the heck is wild American shrimp?
Shrimp that practice an immoral lifestyle. Much tastier than decent American shrimp.
I want a pony.
Anybody got figures on the earmarks requested by the other representatives? I want to see what “King of Pork” amounts to in real terms.
“I have no doubt that he doesn’t like the unconstitutional spending but he figures if someone is going to get the pork it might as well be the 14th District of Texas.”
Well, if he really stood up for his principles he would not submit earmarks he considers unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.