Congrats, you just lost a member.

Ron Paul has never voted for a bill with unconstitutional provisions in it. He is the most principled statesmen in Congress. You lost all your credibility with this "Pork Problem" article. You also lost me as a member!

Why don't you post the earkarks for ALL Republicans for the last year? Frank Lollar Tucson, mexico

Oh, one other thing: the idea that "Ron Paul never voted for a bill with unconstitutional provisions in it" is kind of a joke when he deliberately adds earmarks that he knows everyone else will vote for him: he's using everyone else to do his dirty work, so he can appear to keep his hands clean. Again, in the grand scheme of things a minor infraction. But it certainly sullies the claim of his supporters which I quote above; and those supporters ought to be discussing this with Ron Paul, not attacking the messenger.

Has he tried to pass legislation on eliminating earmarks, some looks like they where vital for infrastructure. Hey not every one is perfect. FYI Reagan increased the deficits too. Not all earmarks are pork.

I believe that earmarks are a vey small part of government spending and waste. I do agree with Ron Paul's non-support for the LARGER problem - corporate entitlements. I do not see that earmarks represent a conflict of interest. Also, when I voted on the same e-mail about whether or not I wanted OBAMA's policies to succeed, I had no opportunity for comment. I voted YES, because to want his economic policies to fail is to want this country's economic system to fail - kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face (despite what Rush Limbaugh, the entertainer says). Besides, it was the Republican (not conservative) policies of Dubya and Dick that brought this recession/depression to pass. Thanks!

Ron Paul votes against the spending. Then if the money that they voted on doesn't get spent on ear marks, it ends up being spent by the Executive Branch. Does that sound constitutional to you?! I can't believe this was posted here. How completely irresponsible. I am out of here. I hope others with any logical sense of reason will follow unless this website retracts this article immediately and sends out an e-mail apologizing for being stupid.

I am appalled at the amount of money headed to DC from each state. This is an abomination of sense and practice. If I was in a position to return ANY OF it to my constituants, I would do so in each and every way possible. The FEDs should not have my state's money, they should not spend my state's money, they should have strongly limited access to appropriate fees and taxes, and live within that amount for the limited work it undertakes. The FEDs should NOT undertake work outside their immediate constitutional imperative. Everything done to preempt the FEDS from levying, taxing, cahrging for, confiscating, stealing, obtaining, spending, or otherwise tieing up the money of its citizens at the FED level is a good thing. It is too bad that establishing state directed ear marks and pork have become another way of accomplishing this goal: lets abandon ALL EARMARKS ASAP forever, buts lets not blame those who have suffered unfair usurpations of thier fortunes from finding a lawful way of recovering some of it. If Ron OPaul has broken laws, accuse him: if not shut the hell up or work to stop earmarks alltogether AND to end excessive taxation and unjust spending.

I'm sure Viguerie's enjoying watching Ron Paul supporters and detractors go at it to raise his beleaguered hit count. Unfortunately for him, the man with no base doesn't build one picking nits at other people.

I'm a huge supporter of Representative Paul; however, I agree with you here, and I find it ironic that some of his fans posted here saying comments like, "You just lost a member," just because you brought up 1 negative point about their political icon. Nobody's perfect - everybody has their faults, but the comments on this article show that some of Ron Paul's followers refuse to admit that about Dr. Paul.

Ron is the Most Main-line conservative alive today, his reasoning: "As long as the Federal government takes tax money from [Paul's] constituents, he will make every effort to return that money to his district." Is right on! Not Constitutional? The Federal Govt is not supposed to be taking the peoples income tax in the first place (constitutionaly that is!!!) Study your Constitution a little more & quit kissing that Neocon's(Rush L.)Butt!- then you will deserve the title CONSERVATIVE.

Is he not supposed to represent his district? His constituents are being robbed. He's just doing his best to get it back for them. A hit piece on the one man that actually votes against this crap, give me a break!

If a thief steals your TV, are you wrong to try to get it back?? Kevin

It makes perfect since to me that a Representative would make sure that his own district gets as much back as possible from any big pork bill, and then vote against the whole thing, so it doesn't get spent in the first place. That's how I think I'd do it. http://balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com/

If you are trying to appeal to real conservatives, you should really educate yourself first.Trying to discredit an honorable man like Rep. Paul is really just showing your ignorance. Ron Paul votes against all spending, but when it's passed anyway, that money is going to be spent one way or another. Earmarks just allocate where the money is spent.The people that live in his district will be paying for this spending, this is just a way that a portion can be returned to their area. The important thing to remember is that Paul votes against these spending bills in the first place. Check the congressional record.

Dan said: "Ron Paul votes against the spending. Then if the money that they voted on doesn't get spent on ear marks, it ends up being spent by the Executive Branch. Does that sound constitutional to you?! I can't believe this was posted here. How completely irresponsible. I am out of here. I hope others with any logical sense of reason will follow unless this website retracts this article immediately and sends out an e-mail apologizing for being stupid." Dan, I totally agree with you. This is a really weird thing for Richard to do, when there are a lot bigger fish to fry. This is a total non-issue. Some call Paul's people's explanations "spin." I get it, I don't know why they don't. Ron Paul's the one in Congress who has consistently championed the U.S. Constitution in its entire scope, over such a long period of time. His principled stands against the Fed require grassroots support and prayers. It is the key issue of our time, economically speaking. From the Fed, the poison of greed, manipulation of the money supply, leading to artificial booms and busts, have crippled this nation's economy again and again, sapping the lifeblood of this nation's hardworking entrepreneurs and working people. Also, his ability to reason out the most fundamental flaw in our society - Roe v Wade - in terms of its rightful place at the State level, is HUGELY important. This Ron Paul bashing is extremely uncalled for and must be apologized for.

Playing on ignorance of how the federal racket works to take a cheap shot at Ron Paul. I always suspected it was only a matter of time before this rapidly invented “Conservative HQ” revealed a previously hidden agenda: hijack the freedom movement so you can lead it to impotence—just like the traitor Newt Gingrich did in the '90's and Bill Buckley did before that.

Maybe it would be better to just let Obama decide where the all money should go? Here's the statement on earmarks from Ron Paul's website: Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives April 10, 2008 Madame Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding the constitutional role Congress plays in determining how federal funds are spent. Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending. Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue-- the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports. Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars. Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers. Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit. Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority--restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget.

Thank you for the useful data on earmarks. Now if we can simply insist that all the members of congress reduce their requests down to the level of Ron Paul we could save the taxpayers some real cash. Oh, by the way you can now remove my name from your membership list. I am not interested participating in a group that eats their own wounded.

It's funny how you self-proclaimed guardians of the conservative cause ratcheted up the rhetoric against Ron Paul last year, during his election, at just about the time when his campaign was building steam. Now he is getting the core message of conservatism into the main stream and you are stifling him again. What was your offering last year, McCain/Palin. Wow! That sure went well! You should be welcoming him with open arms and denouncing the remnant neocon idiots...just on the prayer that the citizenry will tire of Socialism by 2012. That is, provided elections are still permitted then. Nice job, idiots!

Please drop my address from your list, along with others so requesting in response to this article.

This is a questionable posting, Richard. Ron Paul is one of the true friends of the taxpayer and the Constitution we have in Congress. The legislative process is messy; in this case, Paul's justification holds some water. Should he let his colleagues and bureaucrats decide where to spend this money or fight like he does to defeat the spending, but work to get his constituents share if Congress insists on spending it over his objections? Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the good. In the future, please use your blog to attack the enemies of our freedom, not our closest friends.

RP addresses earmarks here. Im highly skeptical that you understand the process of earmarks. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr041008h.htm

Wait, didn't you advocate sending a thank you to Sara "I was against the bridge to nowhere before I was for it" Palin?

The logic makes sense to me. If the bs stimulus bill is going to pass you might as well get some of the money back to the tax payers of your state. We are long past saving this country through a political movement. The mass media is much to powerful. I am sadden to say we need a real revolution. After the mass media is destroyed, the masses will learn the truth and tryanny will vanish like evil spirits at down. As Thomas Jefferson once said: The tree of liberty from time to time must be replenished with the blood of both patriots and tyrants.