I can explain it. Ron Paul votes against the spending bill. But if it passes, despite his vote, he proposes that his district get a share of the spending. This practice does not increase spending one dime. He does everything he can to stop the spending. If he didn't seek earmarks, his district wouldn't get anything out of the money already set aside to be spent. It would go to someone else.
PK | 08.06.07 - 9:59 pm | #

Dr. Paul is one of the few who publicaly releases the earmarks he has applied for.
He applies for earmarks in order that his constituantes are able recoup their share of the taxes they send to the Feds. While he may submit earmarks for bills, he also on principal will vote no on those same bills. Don't be disillusioned, the powers that be are starting the hits on him and will twist everything they can find to dishonor what he stands for.
Dave | 08.06.07 - 10:06 pm | #

I love it. People like the author of this blog are sooo anxious for anything, ANYTHING, dirty on Ron Paul that whenever they think they have something they are always completely wrong.

Too funny.
disinter | Homepage | 08.07.07 - 12:22 am | #

RON PAUL!!!!
Greg | 08.07.07 - 7:55 am | #

I just sent $50 to Ron. It was the first time I ever gave to a political campaign. To justify my support, I offer this excuse: Ron Paul does forward requests that his office gets. He puts them in and then votes against them. The ones that pass at least return some of the money back to his district.
ken | 08.07.07 - 2:22 pm | #

Disinter,

I want Ron Paul to win, am a fan and am disappointed with his pork. $400 million is a lot of dough that we taxpayers have to shell out to pay for advertising for the Texan shrimp industry. Mine is a rational a very libertarian opinion.

Your statement:

"People like the author of this blog are sooo anxious for anything, ANYTHING, dirty on Ron Paul that whenever they think they have something they are always completely wrong."

...is juvenile and missed the whole point of my post, which is that I want Paul to win and am disappointed with the pork. I bet you are under 30 or have ADD.
Leonardo | 08.07.07 - 9:16 pm | #

Leo,

Even we get accused from the uber Ron Paul supporters of being out to get him...

They can be tough people to get along with..
Rob | Homepage | 08.08.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Check out this thread for a better explanation
http://ronpaulforums.com/ showthr...hlight=earmarks

This guy sums it up nicely...
http://ronpaulforums.com/showpos...301& postcount=9
Rob D. | 08.09.07 - 10:28 am | #

People who are for earmark reform are not for less spending, but less congressional control over spending. They want the bureaucracies to decide how the money is divided up, because its easier to buy these people off.

Conclusion:

Ron Paul is not only taking the ethical position by making sure money that his district sent to Washington is being brought back, but also the Constitutional position. The Constitution states that congress shall hold the purse strings and earmarks are Congress's way of specifically appropriating funds. Ron Paul is against the money being spent in the first place, but feels that its Congress's job to make sure the money is spent wisely if it is already to be spent because the bureaucracies will not.

Here is an example:

Say $100 million is going to be appropriated to the department of Agriculture. RP doesn't feel that it is Constitutional so he votes against it. It passes anyways because the other Congressmen want to spend. Now RP has a decision to make, either have Congress earmark the funds to they are spent specifically or hand over the $100 with no direction and let the Dept of Ag. spend as they please. We can clearly see what happens when these Departments get to spend as they please, it is a disaster so RP choose to earmark the funds.
Rob D. | 08.09.07 - 10:30 am | #