So if he gets back more pork for his state than the taxes that were extracted from it, he’s still just returning stolen money, or doing some stealing himself from some other state? Furthermore, was the money returned to the taxpayers from whom it was actually filched, or to some project that abstractly benefits “his state,” and therefore also indirectly the individual taxpayers who actually paid the taxes, even though they may never visit the museum or cross the bridge, or chill in the park. This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I can't speak for his district, but the state of Texas as a whole only gets back 94% of what it puts in as far as taxation is concerned.
This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I don't understand your issue, I truly don't. You seem to be saying that the money should stay in Washington, and that to be truly consistent, he can't just vote against the appropriations bills, he has to reserve no return of tax money to his district.
So is it better to have the money stay in Washington, or better for some of it to return to the district in some form. If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no income tax and no IRS, but he's working within the reality of the situation.