Ron Paul would. De Mint and Hunter might (barring a war). We just need, what, several hundred more of them?
I was born, no, that didn’t add a penny. It was money in the bill and otherwise would have been part of the blank check the president got. The congress has power of the purse in a separation of powers going back to the magna carta. They aren’t SUPPOSED to hand blank checks to the president for his appointed officials to spend and allocate behind closed doors. They should earmark every penny of it. If it is WASTEFUL, that is different, but Ron Paul’s spending for the district he represents is not wasteful. If he can’t kill the spending altogether, it is his job to get as much for his constituents as he can. He figures the government steals all too much from them in taxes, and he’ll fight to get back what he can. However, he will vote against the spending, altogether, to try to kill the bill
Think it through. Those who make a big deal of the 2% of spending in ‘earmarks’ just want a diversion. And an unconstitutional line item veto for the president of their choice to do away with separation of powers, even more.
No I can’t. I can barely imagine a politician able to keep it in their pants nowadays.
Concerning Ron Paul: March 2, 2009
“Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Rep. Ron Paul contributed to its size.
Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation…”
They do. They’re committed to sacrifice their seats if needed to remake America into a third-World shell. The Cap and Trade vote proved that beyond all reasonable debate.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm 1
Ron Paul would. De Mint and Hunter might (barring a war). We just need, what, several hundred more of them?
I was born, no, that didn’t add a penny. It was money in the bill and otherwise would have been part of the blank check the president got. The congress has power of the purse in a separation of powers going back to the magna carta. They aren’t SUPPOSED to hand blank checks to the president for his appointed officials to spend and allocate behind closed doors. They should earmark every penny of it. If it is WASTEFUL, that is different, but Ron Paul’s spending for the district he represents is not wasteful. If he can’t kill the spending altogether, it is his job to get as much for his constituents as he can. He figures the government steals all too much from them in taxes, and he’ll fight to get back what he can. However, he will vote against the spending, altogether, to try to kill the bill
Think it through. Those who make a big deal of the 2% of spending in ‘earmarks’ just want a diversion. And an unconstitutional line item veto for the president of their choice to do away with separation of powers, even more.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:54 pm 2
No I can’t. I can barely imagine a politician able to keep it in their pants nowadays.
Concerning Ron Paul: March 2, 2009
“Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Rep. Ron Paul contributed to its size.
Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation…”
A liar like all the rest.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm 3
They do. They’re committed to sacrifice their seats if needed to remake America into a third-World shell. The Cap and Trade vote proved that beyond all reasonable debate.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:30 am 4
No, I would have to say that their level of discipline has diminished over time.