Replies

Pork is less than 1% of the federal budget. Taxation does not exist to fund pork; pork is a tiny offshoot that Congressman and Senators use, like you said, to help in their reelection campaigns.

But I don't understand why you think Paul's district should be the only one that doesn't receive anything.

Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.

I honestly can't think of one Congressman who has lived up to that principle more than Paul, regardless of whether or not he makes earmarks. The money has already been taxed. Whether or not Congresspeople send it back to their district will have no effect on the rates of taxation.

His non-interventionism is much too spiced with hippie pacifism for me, but I can't seem to sympathize with your point about earmarks. I completely understand why he puts them in there, and why votes against the appropriations bills that contain them.

The money has already been taxed for fy 2010, and the budget was passed in 2009. In 2010, they wrote the budget for 2011, for which taxes will be collected in 2012. Until the tax money rolls in, it will be financed with bonds. In each of those budgets, there is pork, earmarks, whatever you want to call it, along with the larger scale thievery along those lines, all of which come to substantially more than 1% of any budget. Strict construction of the Constitution requires that Congress only enact laws and spend money for things that are necessary and proper for the exercise of its specifically enumerated powers. Paul doesn’t do that. Neither does any other Congressman. But Ron Paul claims to, and that’s a myth. I rest my case.

IF the earmarked miney was going back to his district as say, a tax rebate, that his district could use as they sa fit, that is one thing. But that isn’t how earmarks work. The money is designated for specific projects, many of which are vanity, most of which are a waste and a drain, even on the district when the earmarked money runs out. Remember the “Big Dig”? The “Bridge to Nowhere”? The study of pork rinds?

Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough. I honestly can't think of one Congressman who has lived up to that principle more than Paul, regardless of whether or not he makes earmarks. The money has already been taxed. Whether or not Congresspeople send it back to their district will have no effect on the rates of taxation.

Precisely. That's logical for anyone who wants to understand it. But you have to understand the motivation for those calling Ron Paul "a hypocrite" on this earmark issue.

Ron Paul has always been, not just a winner, but a formidable winner in his District. To try to make Ron Paul less electable, his political opponents -- both Democratic and Republican -- tried to smear and scare Ron Paul into not asking for earmarks for his District. It didn't work. He isn't an idiot. He didn't fall for it. He won reelection to the House in the last election with 70% of the vote.

Since he's been running for president, Ron Paul's detractors have taken up to using the same old propaganda they tried in his District. They understand it. They just want to recruit anyone who doesn't.