Calling all porkers, your trough is ready.

“Soo-eee, soo-eee, calling all porkers.” Yes folks, its that time again, when Congressvermin line up with their earmarks to buy favor from the locals in their districts.
And once again, conservative Ron Paul, is passing out the pork like a dyed-in-the-wool politician. Here are just a few of the projects Paul has requested using tax payer funds to finance. As far as I know none of them are within the Constitutional scope of government.

Bayside Community Hospital – $20,000,000 due for being “adversely impacted by huriccanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina.” Adversely impacted is a very all-emcopassing term.

TecGen - $2,800,000. As best as I understand it TecGen is a private company that produces fire protection gear. They want Texas A&M to test their gear and Ron Paul is happy to have the taxpayers, through earmarks, pay for what appears to be a subsidy to a private company. His justification is it “will also provide protective materials for law enforcement and homeland security operators” and can be used in Irag and Afghanistan. The fibre is produced in Texas and also sold on the basis that the Texas “will benefit from job creation.” Surely Paul knows that is not the case.

Revelation Missionary Baptist Church - $2,500,000. The purpose is to build a “community outreach center” for the church. Remember Paul says that separation of church and state is a fiction. But he also said that separation only applies to the federal government, not to the states. So precisely how is $2,500,000 in federal pork, for a church, not violating the separation of the federal government from the church?

Wharton County Youth Fair - $4,500,000 to build them a “new facility.” Which part of the Constitution authorizes that?

Wharton County Jr. College - $220,000 to help train students for work in the nuclear power industry. I’m pro-nuclear myself, but I’m not sure the federal government should be subsidizing the production of staff members for that field.

Trinity Episcopal School -- $1,000,000. This is put in as to help the school due repairs from hurricane damage. I should say that this church seems relatively decent and sane, from what I can see. I’m not into the god claims but these aren’t fundamentalists and bigots. Quite the contrary. But I find no mention of hurricane damage on the school’s web site. However, the church is raising money for damage to the church. Is this a fast one, where the school is being substituted for the church, because it will be easier to get funding? And while this church and school seems relatively decent, is it a constitutional function of the federal government to fund local religious institutions?

Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership - $4,000,000 to train small business on how to use “knowledge and technology from the US Space Programs to commercial use.” Sounds like a business subsidy to me, with all the defects of subsidies.

Kendleton RV Park - $1,000,000. For an RV park to “enhance tourism to retain and expand job opportunities.”

Victoria Channel – $7,000,000. “Designed to protect jobs and economic activity.” Hmm, how does that fit with Austrian economics again?

Those are a few of the sort of Pork-barrel projects that Ron Paul proposed to the budget. He really outdid himself this year. A quick tally shows his pork projects totaling almost $395,000,000. Last year he only managed to line up only $96 million for the little piggies in his district, making him the biggest spender in the Texas delegation in the House of Representatives. He clearly outdid himself this year.

The Rondroids, however, won’t see these pork projects as a bad thing, at least not when St. Ron of Paul is proposing them. These things are only bad when other Congressvermin do them. I’ve even seen comments on the Rondroid sites praising Paul “for taking care of his district.” Yep, that’s a good libertarian view, get your Congressman “to take care of you.” I guess when it comes to pork-ridden earmarks he’s Dr. Yes Please.

Don't feel sorry for the ethanol hogs.

The New York Times has a short piece regarding Texas asking the Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver on the use of the ethanol. Of course the ethanol hogs, feeding at the government trough, are livid over the idea.

Yet some of those who will lose their place on the government gravy train do have legitimate concerns. One company complain that it wouldn’t have spent millions on piping without the governments mandated increases in the use of ethanol.

One farmer said: “We bought fertilizer and corn seed, decide our crop mix on the basis of ethanol being where it was. To change the mandate in the middle of our growing season, that’s really not right.” He apparently never worried if the mandate was right in the first place.

Government intervention constantly screws up the private plans of citizens. Government planning does not impose planning where chaos ruled. It imposes one crude plan in place of millions of micro-plans set up by the people. It substitutes a plan by a politician for the millions of plans by individuals.

When politicians pushed the ethanol boondoggle they messed up the plans of lots of people. For instance, they are starving poor people to death in Third World nations because they have push up food prices artificially by consuming vast amounts of food to produce ethanol. Those poor people didn’t plan on starving to death but Hillary and Obama and the majority of the US Congress decided that buying the votes of well-off farmers was more important than a bunch of poor people starving to death.

Others who are are not starving are still financially hurting because of the moves. Families that planned one budget suddenly had to start cutting things out, in the middle of their financial year, because well-off farmers got hoggish with government subsidies. The businessmen and farmers now complaining about a change in the policy didn’t see anything wrong with upsetting the plans of others when they helped push these subsidies through.

The very individuals who are now complaining about how a change in policy is upsetting their plans advocated the policies which upset the plans of hundreds of millions of other people. They didn’t care then so why should we care now?

On the surface it sounds reasonable for them to complain that they made certain investments based on the returns promised by politicians. Changing those plans now will be detrimental to them. But so what? First, their profits were being stolen from working people by government force. What they are whining about is that they might not be able to mug the taxpayers any longer.

If you are walking down a dark street and someone puts a knife to your throat he has plans for your money. If you use Mace on him you might just foil all the plans he had made. But he had no right to make plans with your money.

And the farmers and corporate interests that were getting rich off of ethanol had no right to make plans with your money either. Personally I think it a good thing when we foil the plans of robbers, thieves and political muggers.

This ethanol issue also shows how pernicious the argument used by conservative Bob Barr, presidential candidate for the (formerly) Libertarian Party. Barr wanted to bail out FannieMae and FreddieMac because government had been so heavily involved in the housing bubble that it helped create the crisis we are now facing.

Government did. Just like it created the food crisis with ethanol, the energy crisis with numerous policies, the drug cartel problem with drug prohibition, the illiteracy problem with state education, the congestion problem with socialized roading and a host of problems.

People make plans based on the current political realities. Government forces people to change those plans. And a series of state interventions usually leads to a crisis. But if we were to bail out every industry that was negatively effected by government policy we would have 100% federal bailouts. Every industry would be eligible.

If we want government to mitigate the bad results of every policy it has passed there would be no end of government interference. People who advocate state intervention to mitigate bad policies are no different than the people who advocated the bad policies in the first place. First, none of them argued their policies were bad. They all felt they were justified for some greater good.

And the Barr interventionists are ignoring the main lesson from such debacles: government intervention, no matter the intentions, leads to unintended consequences. Barr’s solution will itself distort the market even more and lead to further bad consequences. That is the road to serfdom that Hayek warned about. Bad policies lead to bad consequences. These results then are used to justify more policies to mitigate those harms. The new policies lead to further bad consequences thus justifying more intervention. Mises argued that interventionism is socialism by “a series of successive steps.”

And many of these successive steps were justified as remedies for the ill results of previous policies.

Bailing out people who benefited from previous government policies is not libertarian. Their failure, if anything is a bit of justice. It returns some of the booty that they stole back to the productive economy. As such their failure fuels beneficial and productive enterprises.

The ethanol hogs, eating at the through, had no right to the riches they received. They picked those riches out of the pockets of lots of people who were in far worse financial straits. Government intervention almost always robs those who are poorer and less powerful and benefits those who are wealthier and powerful. After all, the political elites love that wealth and power, they need it. So it should be no surprise that government intervention redistributes wealth from the have-nots to the haves.

Now and then the haves end up in trouble because the government program they rely upon is not sustainable. Some, like ethanol subsidies, create massive disasters quickly. Bailing out those who were lining their pockets with stolen money is absurd. Let them fail. Their failure will be a sign to others who hope to get rich by political redistribution. It will help rectify the economic crisis faster if they fail. And it starts to put the stolen money back in the hands where it belonged. After watching the misery inflicted on billions of people by this ethanol policy I can’t muster any sympathy for the ethanol hogs fearing the end of their free ride. It should have come sooner.

Ron Paul's personal pork projects.

Guaranteed 100% pork. The media has noted, though many libertarians have ignored, that the allegedly “libertarian” Republican, Ron Paul, has been bringing home the bacon to his district, just like every other vote-seeking politician. The PR hype is that Paul is different. Judge for yourself.

Paul says he only votes for spending authorized by the US Constitution. But when it comes to using his Congressional position, to request pork for projects in his own district, apparently anything goes. Whether the spending is Constitutionally legitimate, or no,t Paul brings home the bacon.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul:

...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’s arguments for using pork barrel projects in his own district is that, “if they take it, we should ask for it back.” Of course, on that basis, there is little spending which is not justified.

Paul also argued that these special earmarks, used by Congressman to increase their own popularity at home, don’t add anything to the budget. The funding is already in the budget he says and the budget is not increased to compensate for them. But spending $400 million on pork, as Paul requested, still means the $400 million is spent. And, under the current budget, if it is spent, it contributes to the deficit that will, no doubt, mean higher future taxes. While agencies try to spend their full budget so they can request more the next year. There is some slim chance that funding allocated will not be spent. Earmarking makes sure the funds are spent.

Even if one were to buy Paul’s argument, shouldn’t the earmarks, at the very least, correspond with Constitutionally permitted spending? Does Paul's dubious claim that the “people” are really spending the money, as opposed to politicians, mean the spending need not be constitutionally justified?

Certainly, the special interest groups that put in requests for such spending are not “the people”. And the idea that this removes spending authority from politicians is absurd. It means that the special interests have to go to a Congressman, with begging bowl in hand, asking for the handouts. Since the individual politicians is the gateway for such funding it expands his ability to buy votes with taxpayer funds.

Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for. It is apparent that much of this has nothing to do with programs permitted, or mandated, by the Constitution. You figure out what clause of the Constitution enumerates the spending in question. I’m not an expert on the workings of Congress but reading through the funding requests I am under the impression that Paul was seeking multiple funding for some of these projects. I don’t know if this is cumulative, but that is the impression I got. Either way asking for it once is bad enough.

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 don’t really know much about the shrimp industry, but it is big in Texas, and it has been demanding that the federal government act to restrict imports in one way or another. One press release, by Paul’s office, states that the Congressman “joined several of his House colleagues urging action by the Commerce Department to protect the troubled domestic shrimp industry.” Paul said US companies “have been devastated by cheap imported shrimp” and he wants to end foreign aid to any nation that subsidizes shrimp. His “Shrimp Importation Fairness Act” was “to help level the playing field between the foreign and domestic shrimp industries.”

While I understand the anger of US shrimp companies over foreign competition (I wouldn’t mind being the only blog on the block) it is strange to condemn other countries for allegedly subsidizing their shrimp industries while putting in requests to subsidize the US shrimp industry. I’m opposed to government-to-government aid regardless of who receives it. Targeting the aid of only those nations, that have successful shrimp industries of their own, sounds more like back door protectionism, while the $13 million in earmarks to US shrimp producers sounds like front door pork.

Paul seems to be playing on both sides of the fence. He puts in the requests for the pork which becomes part of the budget. Then he votes against the appropriations bill. He knows that the vast majority of these spending bills will pass regardless of what he does. He can brag to shrimpers about the millions in subsidies which he earmarked for them, but he can also claim to have voted against the subsidies he guaranteed. It is one way to be all things to all people.

Not all politicians use earmarks. One can successfully hold office without resorting to such favor granting. John Boehner (R-OH), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Lee Terry (R-NE), are confirmed as having not requested earmarks. And at least six Senators have eschewed the process as well.

It isn’t that Paul doesn’t make some valid points. Money that an agency would spend, as they wished, is directed by Congress to specific projects. But, here is the other side of the coin. There is spending which is constitutional and spending which isn’t. If funds are left in a general budget there is some chance, very slim perhaps, that it might be spent in a constitutional manner. But when Paul earmarks funding for unconstitutional projects he guarantees, without any question, that the spending will violate the constitution. What slim chance there is, that the spending might be constitutionally warranted, is snuffed out by the earmark. And I find that odd for an alleged “constitutionalist” to do.

Individuals wanting more information on the real legacy of Ron Paul can go here.

You better watch out, you better not cry.

You know that wonderful people over at Homeland Security fighting so hard to protect from all monsters -- real or imaginary. Well, apparently they have more money than they know what to do with. Oh, the benevolence of King George to shower them with such large sums of cash that they in turn can shower the plebes and little people with great sums as well.

Consider how Homeland Security funding is helping the tiny town of Cheshire, Massachusetts. The town has a volunteer fire department. But that is not really surprising. After all the entire community is only 3,401 people as of the last census. They aren’t poor people with an average household income of about $42,000. That basically comes out to an income of about $19,000 per person in the town, including the kids.

The town wanted a new fire truck. So they contacted Rome, I mean the federal government, and sent in their petition. And the beneficent state of King George heard their supplication and awarded them a homeland security grant.

A homeland security grant? Is this tiny town really in line for an attack from radical Islamists? Perhaps they are secretly infiltrating the town as we speak. No one notices. Several times a day the infiltrators bow to Mecca but they tell everyone they are looking for a lost contact lens. This actually caused some problems for the Islamists. They keep using the contact lens excuse to justify being on the their hands and knees on the ground and towns folks keeping down there with them to help. The Islamists now think the entire is Muslim and aren’t sure whether or not to go ahead with their planes to attack.

Anyway they weren’t sure what to attack. Other than a big stature of a cheese press there isn’t much that qualifies as a landmark. The cheese monument is a big thing. In 1801 the towns folks, who were Baptists were big fans of Thomas Jefferson.

Back in those days Baptists supported separation of church and state and Jefferson was a strong proponent of the idea. So when he got elected president the town rejoiced and decided to send Jefferson a a present. So they created a 1,450 pound hunk of cheese. They sent it to Jefferson with that great early libertarian Rev. John Leland. Now we wouldn’t want terrorists driving a bicycle into the cheese monument would we?

So the heroic men and women at Homeland Security considered the matter seriously and sent the town a cheque. All in all they were given the sum total of $665,962. That isn’t exactly chump change for a town this tiny. And they aren’t sure what to do with it. They have never had that much money given to them before for anything.

Of course there is a problem. With Washington there is always a problem. They aren’t allowed to spend the money on a fire truck. Fire Chief George Sweet says: “We really could use that truck.”

Instead the money will be spent on billboards and advertising. They can use it reimburse the volunteers for missed wages (that shouldn’t be too much in a town this size). They can get spiffy new uniforms as well. Homeland Security likes basic brown with black boots and red armbands with a funny black spider inside a white circle on them.

Don’t feel too bad the town Pittsfield got some funding too. Compared to Cheshire they are big time with a booming population of 45,793. They have three zip codes! They also have a community college, an arboretum and at least one building over twelve floors high. With a commuter airport nearby they are prime targets for a terror attack especially with that multiplex cinema in town.

The good people at Homeland Security have not forgotten Pittsfield. They received a grant of $313,000 for the emergency response communications. And they have emergencies! Just the other day that darn old cat of Miss Struthers got up a tree and wouldn’t come down. Dang it. Thankfully with Homeland Security on the ball that won’t happen again.

Meanwhile Homeland Security, in their wisdom, is saving money too. They cut spending in Washington, DC and New York City by 40 percent. Admittedly those were the only two cities ever targeted by terrorists in the US but surely they had their reasons. Lightening never strikes twice in the same place. Well, except New York, you might remember bin Laden had tried to bring down the Twin Towers once before he successfully managed to do it.

But the Santas at Homeland Security still have about $750 million to throw around in grants. And you know what they say about Santa.

You better watch out,
You better not cry,
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town.
He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out
Who's naughty and nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping.
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
Oh, you better watch out!
You better not cry.
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town.
Santa Claus is coming to town!

Ho, Ho, Ho everyone. Santa Claus exist and he's Homeland Security and he sees you when you're sleeping.