Ron Paul ads proudly state he "voted against every tax and spending bill in Congress" yet after the spending bill passes Congress he routinely appropriates money for his district via earmarks. Some see this as hypocritical stance on spending, others see it as common sense--a representative garnering money for his home district. If Ron Paul truly wanted to stop spending why doesn't he: 1. Attempt to earmark the ENTIRE spending bill for his district. Even if it is an impractibility to actually achieve 100% spending in his district if he were to do this for every spending bill, surely he would be able to draw more attention to the problem of runaway spending. If not 100% then ask for exorbitant amounts. By not asking for more he might be shortchanging his constituency. 2. Immediately after the spending bill passes Congress introduce counter legislation repealing the just passed spending bill. He could have this legislation already drawn up based on verbiage in the passed bill and introduce it within 24 hours of Congressional voting. Or he could stage a press conference and introduce the counter-bill within minutes of the President's dog and pony show where he signs the bill into law. If he did this faithfully he would eventually get press coverage.