Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Las Vegas Ron

I don’t agree with him on that issue, but earmarks make up an entire 1% of the budget. His argument is that the executive branch would be in charge of earmarks if Congress didn’t do it.


48 posted on 05/29/2011 1:04:32 PM PDT by Brett11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Brett11
BS, you just keep on convincing yourself of that.

Man does he have you people hoodwinked.

50 posted on 05/29/2011 1:11:22 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: Brett11
I don’t agree with him on that issue...

You might want to re-think your disagreement. You do know that the "pork" money in question is already allocated in a federal budget that has been passed by both houses of congress (with a no vote from Dr. Paul), and has been signed into law by the president (or by obama if it's a recent spending bill).

The money IS going to be spent - either on what it was earmarked for, or it goes into a general fund (obama's stash).

The earmarks that Dr. Paul gets condemned here for are nothing but funding requests from his constituents that he passes on to a congressional budget committee.

58 posted on 05/29/2011 1:18:33 PM PDT by LIBERTARIAN JOE (Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson