quote:Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Paul does love his earmarks, and his use of doubletalk to defend them is politicking at its best. Paul claims that he only gets earmarks for his constituents because the fedgov is taking too mush of their money, so he will try to get as much back as he can. Then, after he gets his earmarks in every spending bill, he votes against most every spending bill. The rational approach would be to try and end the reckless budget practices of the fedgov, or at least be a honorable representative and not participate in the corruption.
Opposing earmarks is effective as a political stance, but it is not really the problem. And earmark spending is in no way some sort of compromising of principle on Ron Paul's part.
Average Joe's, like myself are rightly concerned about "earmarks", "pork", or whatever you want to call wasteful spending...but ending earmarks as a strategy to be "fiscally conservative" would be nothing short of disaster. Ron Paul knows this, and if most congressmen and media talking heads were more concerned with educating the public than playing politics, this would be obvious.
Eliminating earmarks would simply shift control of government spending from elected officials to unaccountable bureaucrats...shift CONTROL...not the AMOUNT of spending.
The real issue is the size and scope of government. The only way to rein in government spending is by the wholesale elimination of unconstitutional departments, agencies, commissions, administrations, corporations, councils, boards, and bureaus with all of their programs and personnel...and Ron Paul has never shied away from calling for such Constitutionally limited federal government.