...in principle and am struggling with the issue. That is the reason that the article grabbed my attention and I dug into the nature of the "earmarks." They were not pork IMO and were for his district, often picking up the slack where other means (quality control and research, infrastructure repair and maintenance, health care options, etc.) should be available to reach the appropriate end.
That being said, I am in the process of reading "The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. He would also agree with you.
In some ways the answer from the RP office was a little like "everybody does it" and the money was going to be spent anyway...why not for good ends. I also would like an answer that better fits into the total platform. An answer that explains hopefully (a) earmarks are bad, (b) earmarks should go away, (c) what takes their place.
I try very hard to not write anything negative on this site or elsewhere as it could defeat our real purpose. Also, I have found that 100% of the time...when I understand where Ron Paul is coming from, I agree. There may be something here that I do not completely understand. Most likely it falls into the area of "transitional" progress...a period of re-setting the means to ends.
There are practically no negatives that can be said about Ron Paul that can't be countered. I am looking for more on this issue as well. Are "appropriation bills" as they now stand just a "give-away"...a lottery for district needs? I am a bit lost in this whole issue.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: