Comment: Argument over in 3 questions...

(See in situ)

Argument over in 3 questions...

Assuming you're dealing with someone who favors small government, you can make Paul's position on earmarks clear with 3 questions.

Do you think Social Security should be privatized or abolished?

(If they're for small government, they'll say yes.)

#2 If it's not privatized or abolished and you still have to pay into it, will you then refuse to cash your Social Security checks when they come?

(They'll likely say no, they will not refuse to take the checks because they had to pay into Social Security.)

#3 Then why is it wrong for Ron Paul to allow his constituents who were forced to pay for unconstitutional spending, to "cash their check" and get back the money they paid into the system?

#3.5 Especially when not doing so doesn't save money, but just allows the Obama administration to spend the money instead?

Ron Paul is opposed to Social Security and has fought against it. But since that battle is currently losing, Paul pays into Social Security and will cash his checks when they come.

Ron Paul is opposed to unconstitutional pork-spending. But since the battle on the budget was already lost, he allows his constituents to get some of their money back.

It's a consistent small government viewpoint. I wrote a blog post on it here that gets a bit more specific: