As to context, read my responses to some of the other comments in this thread. There is ample room for a difference of opinion here, but I hold that the explanation I give for his use of earmarks is simpler and more close to the truth of the situation than those given by Mr. Paul himself, nothing more.

He is a politician, first and foremost, and as such, wishes to be reelected. One of the ways he does this by passing on earmarks from his constituency to be (hopefully) included in the budget. He then votes against the resulting budget, as a matter of course, knowing that it will be passed regardless of his dissension, with his constituents earmarks funded.

Yes, I take a cynical view of the process, and of all those involved in it. The only difference between me and one of Mr. Paul’s supporters in this respect is, to paraphrase the noted atheist, I simply trust one less politician than you do.

If I am a Representative and I successfully submit dozens of requests for Federal monies to be spent in my constituency to various budgetary committees, all I have to do in order to be seen as opposed to those spending measures, in specific, is vote against the budget that results?

That argument seems to rest on the idea that Mr. Paul wishes these earmarking requests to fail. The truth however, is the same for an politician, not just Mr. Paul — earmarks are how you garner support back home. Without earmarked funds coming into your constituency, you are not likely to be reelected.

It seems more reasonable and logical that the scenario is thus:

I pass on earmarks from my constituents, hoping they will receive the funds that will increase voter support for me in my constituency. I know that the budget will pass eventually regardless of my vote, and that it will contain those earmarks. I know also that it will pass regardless of my vote on it, so I am free to vote against it. In this way, I get to have my cake and eat it too.

1) I have voters who will support me because they think I bring home the Federal bacon.
2) I have voters who support me because they think I am opposed to the budget process that allows 1.

This is pathetic. I read the links you posted, and the story you tried to weave around them, and it just won’t jell. You are telling the literal truth about the facts you choose to present, but you are implying a context that just isn’t there.
I call bull$#!+.

These are a series of requests to the various subcommittees; asking them to please not forget this entity or that entity. In one case, a Sheriff’s Dept. knew in advance the amount they would need.

Oooh! $25,000.00! My goodness that’s a meaty chunk of budgetary scandal. Oh! and look! He asked that as long as millions of dollars were being spent in the name of health care, could someone please remember to give asthma medication to poor children. I guess he isn’t the mean, heartless, scrooge-like, social Darwinist that people make him out to be.

This isn’t a bunch of amendments that would automatically become law should this bill be passed. Each subcommittee will be making the actual decisions on whether to include funding for any of these. From my perusal they mostly seem to be public entities (except maybe the fish hatchery study, that one seems a bit… well, you know - fishy!)

And you can’t even say that a subcommittee would be likely to approve these requests in order to guarantee Ron Paul’s vote on the final spending bill. (not even with a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink”)

Every member of Congress knows full well what Ron Paul’s vote on this bill will be. Same as it is on just about every other spending bill:

NO!

(yeah, yeah, I tried to read the text of that bill you pointed to, where you say that Ron Paul voted against cutting expenditures, and there is a whole lot of other C124P in it that makes me think there is something buried in that mess that explains Ron Paul’s vote. That bill was so long, I should hope it would be voted down simply on the basis that no one could possibly read it all and understand it. One thing I feel we must do is make Congress “Read the Bills” before they vote on them.)

Anyway, if the subcommittee felt that these requests were bad uses of the public’s money, then the subcommittee would certainly be free to ignore them. If the subcommittee felt that these entities needed the funding that was being requested, then it would be up to the subcommittee to approve it, and in what amount.

I suppose, if you want to play ultra-pure-Libertarian-Übermensch fantasy politics, then you could say Ron Paul is a forked-tongued, thrice-damned, flaming, hypocrit. But Ron Paul isn’t running for the nomination of the ultra-pure-Libertarian-Übermensch party.

Ron Paul is running for the nomination of the Republican party. And as Republican politicians go, this is as pure as driven snow on an Antarctic glacier. Oh sure, you can find trace amounts of pollutants anywhere if you look hard enough and squint, but I’ll take it in a heart-beat over that sterilized, industrial, over-processed $#!+ that flows from the taps in New York City.

Sheesh! What a bunch of nothing. I am so glad that this is the worst you can come up with. It really enforces my overall good impression of Dr. Paul’s honesty and integrity.

And I will stack Dr. Pauls’ honesty and integrity, earmarks and shady connections against Frudy McRompson’s any day of the week. No matter how bad you say Ron Paul’s faults are, the others are far, far worse.

Laters

If you allowed me to will into law any sections of the party platform of the LPA at my option, I wouldn’t care if my personal taxes and my personal obligations to the regulatory state remained exactly the same. I would gladly eat the grenade to destroy the modern state.

Yes, of course it does. You aren’t morally responsible for a budget you vote against. Period. The rest of the budgetary process isn’t relevant. It’s like signing on as a co-sponsor of a non-budgetary bill, but then voting against the bill. Your earlier action is undone by your later vote.

The Congress makes legislation by voting. Not by any of the procedures that come before a vote. If you vote against a particular piece of legislation, it’s not yours.

The important question is whether or not his one vote on one bill somehow frees him from the moral precepts he espouses. Simply saying that “since the money is there I might as well grab as much as possible for the folks back home” seems awfully hard to align with his rhetoric, until one remembers that as a politician, his main job is staying in office.