[John D]

Correct me if I am incorrect here, but is not “earmarking” just saying with specificity how the appreciated money is to be spend?

If there is nothing wrong with wasting money with bribes called earmarks, why does the surrender monkey say he is against them? If he is truly against them why does he acquire more bribes called earmarks than any other candidate running? Maybe because he is just plain dishonest.

[jpsb]

It is my understanding that Paul is not against earmarks, he is in favor of earmarks. Going on memory I think his argument is that earmarks are completely transparent and that it is entirely appropriate for Congress to specify how the federal monies should be spent. The problem in D.C. is not that congress uses earmarks to specify exactly how money is spent. The problem is that congress spends money it does not have.