Dr. Paul is. And he's being hypocritical to suck up pork while railing against high government spending. Period.

And it comes down to this, I pay taxes, my goverment needs to work for me. I may not like pork and other unnecessary spending projects that the goverment does, doesn't mean I dont want my piece of the pie.

Also I'm sure if you ask 99% of congress the would tell that they are totally against pork and its an evil practice but they still do it.

But then you dont see those congressmen voting against these bills do you?

It's a cute little bit of political work and you fall for it completely. Let me 'splain.

Paul knows full well that the bills with his pork are going to be voted through. I know it and so do you. He gets to vote against it because his dissenting vote means absolutely nothing to the passage of the bill. Meanwhile, he gets to pass out the tax money back home and puff out his chest and brag about what a small-government guy he is.

The truly principled thing to do would be to put no pork on any bill and work with the few Republicans (and, I believe a Dem or two) who are trying to do away with earmarks entirely.

Until then, he's just tricking you, with your cooperation.

The only time such "pork" barrel items come to fuition is if the congress votes to pass it. As it is, Paul votes against it on principle. He might suggest giving back to the community that which the government takes away, but in the end he knows he can't endorse such spending with a "yes" vote.

So, if your suggestion is that Paul supports passing pork barrel spending, then you'd be wrong.

Next!

Unless there's something in the Constitution I missed about how the Federal government has a vested interest in the shrimp farming industry in Texas…