Replies

Putting the pork in the bill in the first place is substance.

This is not "pork in a bill"...there's no additional spending requested here.

I don't know whether you are ignorant of the process or if you are intentionally trying to distort the picture, but this is NOT any additional spending.

Whether or not these earmarks are made, the appropriation level is set...this is just Rep. Paul requesting his district's requests be reserved from the already appropriated funds, rather than allowing it to be spent willy-nilly by Congress.

Don't confuse this with earmarks added to other bills. There are different types of earmarks.

OMG, I've heard that before, but it is just as funny every time.. Paul's earmarks are special, they are there but they don't increase the budget. I guess you've never heard of baseline budgeting or the congressional budget cycle. Future budgets are calculated using the previous year's budget as a baseline. Any unappropriated funds are generally not budgeted in. Earmarking continues the cycle of increased baselines.

But, what is funnier is the other excuse you make, he votes against it. IF Paul's earmarks are somehow ‘different’ as you claim, than other congressmen and they have the magical power not to increase the budget, why does he vote against them? He claims he is passing on the budget request from his district and he is elected to represent his district, so, if they don't increase the budget and he is just following his voter's will in requesting them and (the other excuse) bringing the money out of Washington and back to his district, they why not vote for it?

You have been drinking the koolaid way to long. The propaganda and spin is really starting to just be funny.

By the way, if this is just returning money to his district and forwarding on his district's requests, they why does his pork requests include: • $26 million for Washington, D.C. "Reading is Fundamental" program • $10 million for Boston, Mass., "Reach Out and Read" national center