There is a lot being made of the interview by Tim Russert with Ron Paul on Meet the Press last Sunday. Some are saying that Paul is a hypocrite for asking for earmarks for his district while he has always preached against them. Is it hypocritical, maybe, is it wrong probably not. For a span of 19 years Ron Paul has served the 14th district of Texas, and in most of that time he watched as his constituents were robbed of their earnings by a government that was and is out of control. He watched as money that his constituents paid in taxes was siphoned off by his colleagues to build bridges to nowhere, Robert Byrd memorials in West Virginia, rain forests in the midwest, and a whole lot more, and after a while it became obvious that the only way he could get some of his constituents' money back was by asking for the money to be used in his district. I find nothing wrong with that. If the system has been set up to allow congress to butter their own bread, at a cost to the rest of the country, that is what should be questioned, not Ron Pauls integrity.

There are 535 members of congress, and all of them are guilty of using earmarks to richen their own districts or states. Ron Paul happens to be the one who has used earmarks the least, but because he used them at all, it seems he is more guilty than all of the rest. I think he would have been doing his district an disservice if he had not gotten what he could for them.

So now Ron Paul has one mark against him that the press can use. He did what all of the rest of congress did. It wasn't against the law.

So what have we learned from this? I think it is that we have a system that is broken, and the best man to put in charge of fixing that system is the one who seems to be taking the biggest amount of criticism and the least amount of benefit. Is it possible that any one of the other candidates would reign in an out of control congress? Most likely not. The only one of those seeking the nomination who has even talked about such a thing is Ron Paul.

Am I glad he took earmarks? No I am not, but I understand why he did it. Would I have done the same thing in his place? I don't know, I have never been elected to congress, not even once, let alone ten times. The frustration of 18 plus years of watching the pork barrel spending is the problem. That spending is what has to be stopped, and I think Ron Paul is the best man to stop it. I don't think he will be shy about using his veto pen, unlike George W. Bush who failed to veto one piece of legislation in his first four years and very few since. Congress may override his vetos at first, but after a time I think they would tire of having to spend their precious time getting the necesary 60% to send legislation back to his desk.

America is tired of congresional overspending and Ron Paul is the only one standing against it.