I find Ron Paul's position on earmarks to be just a tad hypocritical and dishonest.
He claims earmarks are unconstitutional on the grounds that they do not support the "general welfare", yet in the fiscal 08 appropriation bills, he submitted 65 requests for earmarks for projects in his district (last year the average was under 60).
Quote:
Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.
"I don't think they should take our money in the first place," he said. "But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back."
The way it works in Paul's office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair "for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk."
But in the end, Paul said, he would likely vote against the spending bills even if they included earmarks he sought.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...o/4935311.html
RP earmark requests: (pdf or link)
|
So he submits earmark requests from constitutents with barely a review of their merit; then votes against the appropriation bills on principle, knowing full well that the bills will pass with his earmarks included.
If he truly believes earmarks are unconstitutional, then he should reject them all. But turning down funding requests from constitutents for projects like marketing wild shrimp, renovation of an old theater, bridge repair, hospital research, etc...might hurt his reelection.
I do give him credit, along with Barak Obama, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, for making their earmark requests public. The other candidates have not.
But Is he really that much different?