Then why didn't he do it honestly and not the way he did. Like it or not, he is a hypocrite. If he were honest about it, he would have voted for the pork bills instead of saying that he had voted against. I guess he's like a John Kerry in reverse.....he was for them before he was against them.
Terry, I have heard that comment a few times, and I've not investigated it fully. What I'm about to say is therefore not a defense--you may be right--but a counterpoint to be considered.
From what I've read, Dr. Paul has advocated that all spending be itemized in legislation, for sake of transparency. I see wisdom in that idea, and would like to see it develop further; I think putting our actual spending choices in the spotlight would do wonders to expose just how badly our Nation's finances are being managed.
Again, I'm not debating whether he brought programs home to his district, but explaining his stated thoughts on earmarks as a process.
From what I've read, Dr. Paul has advocated that all spending be itemized in legislation, for sake of transparency. I see wisdom in that idea, and would like to see it develop further; I think putting our actual spending choices in the spotlight would do wonders to expose just how badly our Nation's finances are being managed.
Again, I'm not debating whether he brought programs home to his district, but explaining his stated thoughts on earmarks as a process.
I'll take his idea one step further, in addition to itemizing all spending, it would also be nice if it were illegal for an "amendment" to be added to a bill that DID NOT related directly to the bill to which it was attached. More than once, both state and federal "legislators" have tried to pass a bill that may have been voted down or never got out of committee. Once it was "dead," they want to "reintroduce" it into another bill as an amendment.
Make them do a up or down vote and if it fails or doesn't have merit to become a bill going to the full house and senate, then let it die immediately and wait until another year.
