You would rather the bureaucracy decided where our money is spent, right Johnnie?
Earmarks, as distasteful as they may be when it's pork that's being dispensed to a Congressman's chums, are at least (now) a matter of public record. Congressional Record, as well as the votes in committee, are available for all to see.
Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who consistently votes "NO" on bills which conflict with limits set by the United States Consitution as to the federal governement's powers and responsibilities. While other Republicans like to call themselves fiscal conservatives as they continue to vote increased funding for pet projects such as Alaska's notorious "bridge to nowhere," Rep. Paul has demonstrated a tenacious adherence to the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Eliminate a few federal departments and reduce the federal budget by, say, 70 percent, and earmarks take on a new insignificance.
Usually I bring this up when Paul supporters rant about the unconstitutional income tax, but a 70% budget reduction works too.
You support the income tax, I understand that.
Do you support social security? Tax and benefits, Paul supporters give me different answers on that issue.
For what is essentially junior high analysis, wikipedia will suffice.
Show me your 70% reduction, and yes, throwing grandma off the train is fine.
For Paul supporters, explain your support for the unconstitutional income tax, social security too if you're opposed.
Ron Paul's supporters bring new meaning to sophmoric.
blockquote>
Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:
The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.6 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
And yes, I acknowledge RP votes NO,NO, NO on all kinds of stuff.
Will you acknowledge his votes are, well, irrelevant.