“It is not inconsistent with a libertarian philosophy to allow his voters access to the same trough from which others feed.”
It is however inconsistent with a candidate who claims to be the staunchest defender of the Constitution. Either Paul belives these are un-Constitutional or not. If he thinks they are un-Constitutional, then he shouldn’t foward these earmarks.
Again, I’m not sure of the terminology and I don’t claim to represent his argument—
but, as I understand it, every time a constituent makes a request his office passes it along. The earmark’s status is dealt with in committee or on the floor. Requests that go through Paul’s office are made public (not a requirement or the usual practice) and are usually greater in number and $cope—but not necessarily sucess.
Again, I’m only repeating my butchered understanding of what that nice man from ‘Taxpayers for common sense’ said on C-SPAM.