I can't speak for his district, but the state of Texas as a whole only gets back 94% of what it puts in as far as taxation is concerned.
This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I don't understand your issue, I truly don't. You seem to be saying that the money should stay in Washington, and that to be truly consistent, he can't just vote against the appropriations bills, he has to reserve no return of tax money to his district.
So is it better to have the money stay in Washington, or better for some of it to return to the district in some form. If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no income tax and no IRS, but he's working within the reality of the situation.
How about not send it there in such large gobs. The money doesn’t stay in Washington. It goes there because Washington needs it to support all the pet projects that each lawmaker brings home to his district or state, as well as gigantic entitlement programs, and a military that has been known in the past to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer. Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.
It requires a little discipline on the part of lawmakers. They bring pork to their district so that they can use it as a plus for their reelection campaigns. Many of them run unopposed. Those that do have a race to win are in office. Their opponents are not in a position to outspend them in the halls of Congress. So to win reelection, they can instead enact wise laws, support limitations on government spending, make lofty speeches.
Or they can appropriate pork based on the erroneous supposition that the money starts out in Washington and will stay there if they don’t bring home the bacon, and that’s the way the game is played, whether Texas is giving more than it’s getting or getting more than it’s giving.