[marsh_of_mists]

Am I in the Twilight Zone? I keep saying one thing and some of you people are hearing another. No, since the money is going to be spent anyway, he's going to grab as much as he can for his constituents, because otherwise it would just be spent on someone else's constituents. Maybe an anology would help: a beautiful old building is going to be torn down. Paul fights against it, but they tear it down anyway. So Paul decide to salvage some of the rubble for his friends. See now?

[trisham]

LOL!

[dirtboy]

No, since the money is going to be spent anyway,

Please prove your core assertion.

Last I noticed, we are running a deficit. So there is no surplus to be spent. Any earmark goes against the deficit.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Weak analogy. Getting some rubble for people to have for sentimental value isn’t a betrayal of his alleged principles.

If he’s really so against spending taxpayer money on useless crap, he should stand on his principles and refuse to participate in the money-grab of earmarks. Maybe even convince other members of Congress to do the same, and also work on reducing the overall amount available for earmarks. Kind of hard to campaign for that while sticking his snout in the public trough.

Standing up for principles isn’t always easy and sometimes it means making sacrifices — like NOT grabbing at taxpayer money just because it’s there and others are doing it.