Paul defends his opposition to earmarks

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pushed back Tuesday night on reports that he is no longer opposed to earmarks, adding that he would "advocate for Kentucky though the committee process within the context of a balanced budget." 

"I will not put earmarks on bills but I will advocate for things Kentucky needs through the committee process when we deliberate on what are the most important projects. But that's not earmarking and I won't do earmarking," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blizter tonight. 

That leaves Paul walking a very fine line on spending and earmarks. Although some earmarks are added to unrelated legislation, most are pushed through the appropriations committee, where Paul says he would "advocate" for Kentucky. 

Congressional leaders are insistent that they know where money is needed in their states and that they are in control of federal spending, not the executive branch. 

Eliminating earmarking, some lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have said, would give President Obama power over where money is spent. McConnell also has said the practice directs money and would only amount to a savings of about $16 billion, if all earmarks were halted. 

Generally most earmarks are legitimate, but the practice has gotten a bad rap because of its relationship to lawmakers and lobbyists and a "pay to play" culture, along with examples of wasteful spending on projects such as the more than $200 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

Paul said tonight he has asked The Wall Street Journal for a correction on a story it ran over the weekend stating he will "not use an earmark no matter what the Republican Caucus says or what anybody does."

"I'm opposed to earmarking and I won't use earmarks as a senator," he said. "I think the earmarking process shows some of the abuse of Washington. People don't like things being stuck on unrelated bills in the dead of night by someone who doesn't have their name attached often."