I recently made the argument that Ron Paul supports pork spending because he believes that if the government takes money from his constituency he might as well ask for it back. This is the response I got:

'I think that is a cop out. His standard practice is to earmark pork on a bill that is going to pass then vote against it so he can say he never voted for an increase in spending. His argument that not earmarking increases the power of the executive branch is really weak as well.

I read something about in order to prevent tarriffs he voted for subsidies for Texas shrimpers. That goes completely against the small government pro trade ideals he proclaims.

I was intrigued by Ron Paul, and would have considered voting for him. After looking at his voting record and his political maneuvers I saw what he was. The man is a politician who talks an appealing game, but does not practice what he preaches.'

I read where he supported subsidies for Texas shrimpers as well and I thought that was an odd position for Dr Paul to take. Particularly troubling was his stance that seemed to be anti-free trade with foreign countries and pro subsidizing uncompetitive US industries.

He also seemed to think that a big problem was our government's over regulation. Does Paul really think a concerned consumer advocate group can keep a specialized industry like the shrimping industry in check?

I will be converting to Republican to support Paul in the primaries. I've donated once, I plan on donating on Sunday 11/11/07 (through purchase of a book) and on the day of Tea Party 07. I try to spread the word and feel like even if we have our disagreements, Paul is a very principled and in general our country and world will be better for it.