catass: When Ron Paul encounters these ridiculous spending bills in congress, he can do one of four things:
1)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.
2)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.
3)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.
4)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.
Option 1 would absolutely make him a hypocrite. As he's considered "Dr. No" in the House, he consistently votes "no" on spending bills.
Option 2 is a ridiculous option.
Option 3 sounds like a decent choice, but you have to realize that he has been elected to represent his constituents. He pays taxes as well as they do and they need to see some sort of benefit of paying into a system.
Option 4 is what Ron Paul does. He and arguably most of his constituency are very opposed to government waste and massive spending in general. This is why Ron Paul continually votes "no" on these pork bills. Superficially, it seems contradictory to add to a spending bill and vote against it, but it really makes sense, and this is what I would want from my own congressman if he would ever wise up.
Ron Paul is a sound conservative who, I believe, is one of the few true conservatives left in Congress.