RP voting record

[akforme]

I was on GLP and somebody posted Ron's voting record. The link to the voting records can be found here.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I have a few I would like to hear peoples input on.

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)


A couple surprised me, like allowing stem cell research. I don't want to fund it but I don't think the government should restrict science. The other is voting no on removing subsidies for oil and gas, The bankruptcy ones I really know very little about but he has to realize the system creates bankruptcy

Anyway, if anyone has input I'd love to hear it.

[someperson]

I've found that if there's a vote that seems strange, it's usually a case where the bill is either unconstitutional, limited to DC, requires powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or an amendment was inserted into the bill that made it fall under one of the former categories. You often have to read the bill, and not go by the summaries alone.

Look at the "jobs" bill that will be voted on tomorrow that was sprinkled with a Patriot Act amendment.
In a few years, without context, you'll see something like:
Voted NO on creating new jobs to help stimulate the economy (Feb 2010)

If this is not the case for any given bill, it might be best to try to ask him directly for his reasoning, as our speculation would be just that.

[akforme]

I've found that if there's a vote that seems strange, it's usually a case where the bill is either unconstitutional, limited to DC, requires powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or an amendment was inserted into the bill that made it fall under one of the former categories. You often have to read the bill, and not go by the summaries alone.


I'd agree with that 100% I'm basically being lazy, hoping somebody else did the leg work on some of these. That and I'm not stressed enough about any of these to actually spend the time researching them. More of a discussion topic.

[purplechoe]

Ron voted against a bill which had HR 1207 in it if I'm not mistaken...

[someperson]

Checked on this:
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

Some snippets:

CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
HR 6 EH

AN ACT
To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.

TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS
TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES
TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE

SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) In General- For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the `Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve'. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--

(1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels;
(2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation; and
(3) to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

Find the full text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:

As you can see, this bill hardly just repeals oil subsidies. After reading through it, you'll see just how misleading these summaries are.

[Anti Federalist]

I've found that if there's a vote that seems strange, it's usually a case where the bill is either unconstitutional, limited to DC, requires powers beyond those enumerated in Article I, Section 8, or an amendment was inserted into the bill that made it fall under one of the former categories. You often have to read the bill, and not go by the summaries alone.

Look at the "jobs" bill that will be voted on tomorrow that was sprinkled with a Patriot Act amendment.
In a few years, without context, you'll see something like:
Voted NO on creating new jobs to help stimulate the economy (Feb 2010)

If this is not the case for any given bill, it might be best to try to ask him directly for his reasoning, as our speculation would be just that.

That^^^

I've found the same thing to be true, which means, shockingly, he actually reads the bills before voting on them.

[nate895]

That^^^

I've found the same thing to be true, which means, shockingly, he actually reads the bills before voting on them.

I doubt he reads all of them. That would be virtually impossible, unless his routine is "eat, read bills, sleep," he probably has his staff go over most of them, and if they can't get through it he probably has an automatic "no" policy.

As for the OP, I'd agree with most of the other people on the thread. Also, as far as embryonic stem cell and allowing it, he probably can't compromise his pro-life position as far as that one goes.

[someperson]

Just checked on this:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[175] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.

So it's not a ban on anything; I wouldn't be surprised if he voted for it simply to reduce federal funding in that appropriations bill. I also checked on the final vote, and, of course, he voted against the overall appropriations bill which negates this vote ;)

[someperson]

Checked on this:
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

This was an amendment to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS):
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo)."

Obviously, he's opposed to the very idea of the Department of HHS, so he voted no. The bill does not contain any reference to private research.

[specsaregood]

Checked on this:
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

This was an amendment to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS):
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo)."

Obviously, he's opposed to the very idea of the Department of HHS, so he voted no. The bill does not contain any reference to private research.

And I'm pretty sure the "support" in "the Secretary shall conduct and support research" means fund. Which he would most likely is unconsitutional, but he would also tell you it is immoral to force people to spend their money on research they consider immoral.

[someperson]

And I'm pretty sure the "support" in "the Secretary shall conduct and support research" means fund. Which he would most likely is unconsitutional, but he would also tell you it is immoral to force people to spend their money on research they consider immoral.
You're right :)

As for the bankruptcy rules, I'm sure it's related to the constitutional principle that the state must honor and enforce contracts. Bankruptcy typically involves the state mediating the revision of contracts between debtors and creditors. Incidentally, I updated my post about the oil subsidies vote with more detail about the "other projects" that the bill would have enacted.