View Full Version : The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card
The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2007_club_for_growth_repor.php
Is this a bunch of bull?? Can someone explain Ron Paul's score on this?
yeah, I looked into to some of it and some I couldn't explain, and some was obvious that he voted "no" on a bill that would remove certain pork projects. My guess is there was something else attached to that bill that made him vote "no".
But some of them I really couldn't explain, like he voted a couple amendments to certain bills that would do nothing but strike some pork from it. I would like an explanation too...
steph3n
10-13-2007, 08:26 PM
how many of them voted against the pork?
The pork is already unconstitutional so why make a law that makes it wrong?
dircha
10-13-2007, 08:29 PM
The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2007_club_for_growth_repor.php
Is this a bunch of bull?? Can someone explain Ron Paul's score on this?
Ron Paul earmarks money for his constituents, votes against Flake's (primarily) earmark striking amendments, but votes against the overall bill.
Personally I wish he didn't earmark any money. or at least earmarked money in a way that helped all of his constituents based on what they paid, not select special interests.
Flake is proving that you can get elected while still taking this principled position, and I think Ron Paul should step up on this.
But he's the best we can do for President right now.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:29 PM
This is disappointing. This kind of flies in the face of Paul's explanation of the pork he submits. "But I always vote against it."
dircha
10-13-2007, 08:31 PM
yeah, I looked into to some of it and some I couldn't explain, and some was obvious that he voted "no" on a bill that would remove certain pork projects. My guess is there was something else attached to that bill that made him vote "no".
But some of them I really couldn't explain, like he voted a couple amendments to certain bills that would do nothing but strike some pork from it. I would like an explanation too...
Ron Paul earmarks money for his district just like almost everyone else. He then votes against the overall bills. But I assume he doesn't vote for amendments to these bills to strike down earmarks because it would look hypocritical.
dircha
10-13-2007, 08:34 PM
This is disappointing. This kind of flies in the face of Paul's explanation of the pork he submits. "But I always vote against it."
He does vote against the overall bill. These are amendments, most of them introduced by Rep. Flake to strike others' earmarks from the bills.
I assume he votes against the earmark striking amendments for the same reason he earmarks his own money: he wants constituents to get something for their money.
Personally it doesn't sit will with me. I think Paul should take a more principled position like Flake. But he's the best we have.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:35 PM
Ron Paul earmarks money for his district just like almost everyone else. He then votes against the overall bills. But I assume he doesn't vote for amendments to these bills to strike down earmarks because it would look hypocritical.
A member of Congress proposes an amendment that will take Unconstitutional spending out of a bill. Ron Paul votes against it.
I can't endorse that. He still has my support because he's our best shot but I can't see how its consistent with his general philosophy on the role of government.
But, I still don't understand how earmarks are bad?
Money should go to the Department of Homeland Security instead? "Here, have 60million, do what you want."
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:37 PM
But, I still don't understand how earmarks are bad?
Money should go to the Department of Homeland Security instead? "Here, have 60million, do what you want."
Earmarks aren't bad. Earmarks for unconstitutional spending (nearly all of them) are bad.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:39 PM
He does vote against the overall bill. These are amendments, most of them introduced by Rep. Flake to strike others' earmarks from the bills.
I assume he votes against the earmark striking amendments for the same reason he earmarks his own money: he wants constituents to get something for their money.
And yet....he voted yes on 12. Why?
steph3n
10-13-2007, 08:40 PM
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll338.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll337.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll336.xml
just a few, it seems he voted FOR the amendment but i don't know the text yet to understand the vote, looking for the text for these votes now.
my suspicion is there there is something in the others.
Ron Paul earmarks money for his district just like almost everyone else. He then votes against the overall bills. But I assume he doesn't vote for amendments to these bills to strike down earmarks because it would look hypocritical.
No, I already know this. This is not the issue.
He votes against amendments that REMOVE pork attached to a bill. I'm wondering why this is. This isn't attached to a spending bill, it's just attached randomly to some other bill, it shouldn't be there, but Paul voted against removing the pork. That's what this report is measuring - how often congressmen voted against pork projects, not how many got appropriations assigned to projects in their districts.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 08:53 PM
here is the voting record on all of Flake's call for votes:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll190.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll191.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll192.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll204.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll205.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll277.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll278.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll279.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll280.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll298.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll299.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll302.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll303.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll304.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll334.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll335.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll336.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll337.xml
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll338.xml
Ron Paul is on ALL with a AYES
unless I missed one.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:56 PM
The pork bills are listed toward the bottom of the page.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:58 PM
For example:
House Vote 590 - Bars funding of $231,000 for the Grace Johnstown Area Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program in Pennsylvania. Amendment failed, 87-335.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll590.xml
Paul voted no.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 08:59 PM
Wow, Paul voted No on the one that actually passed.
House Vote 593 - Bars funding of $129,000 for the Mitchell County Development Foundation for the home of the "perfect Christmas tree" project. Amendment passed, 249-174.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll593.xml
More on that vote: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&cid=1173352037888&c=MGArticle
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:03 PM
Wow, Paul voted No on the one that actually passed.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll593.xml
trying to find info on this one
Thanks all, but I'm still puzzled... I guess I'm not as politically savvy as you guys/gals!
I trust Ron Paul enough to suspect that there's a good reason for the way he voted...
I need a laymen's explanation
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:05 PM
trying to find info on this one
They killed it because the guy who submitted it had been complaining about pork.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&cid=1173352037888&c=MGArticle
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:06 PM
this one he voted no on seemed to be a vote of spite :) I saw the article Kyle linked to after and it sounded like a silly vote to be honest, the guy submitted the earmark called the perfect Christmas tree because he was sick of all the earmarks and made up one on his own :)
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:07 PM
Thanks all, but I'm still puzzled... I guess I'm not as politically savvy as you guys/gals!
I trust Ron Paul enough to suspect that there's a good reason for the way he voted...
I need a laymen's explanation
A Congressman doesn't like a particular piece of pork earmarked in a bill, so he submits an amendment to the bill to take out that pork. In several cases, Ron Paul votes against that amendment.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:08 PM
this one he voted no on seemed to be a vote of spite :) I saw the article Kyle linked to after and it sounded like a silly vote to be honest, the guy submitted the earmark called the perfect Christmas tree because he was sick of all the earmarks and made up one on his own :)
Ron Paul voted No. That is, Ron Paul voted to keep the funding of The Perfect Christmas Tree in the bill.
Johncjackson
10-13-2007, 09:11 PM
As he says in his speeches, voting against the earmarks does NOT cut spending at all. Since he has no chance to cut the spending either way, it makes sense that he puts in requests from his constituents.
As he said, he may not personally support something, but as a representative of his people, he should listen to his constituents when they bring a request to him.
The alternative is " Hey, constituents, F YOU guys. I am going to send your money to ( insert state here) to study the mating habbits of transexual mosquitos. And you can't get anything back."
The whole voting against earmark thing is symbolic. You still spend the same money. You just ensure your constituents send all their dollars elsewhere. It's the idea that if you are forcing people to spend the money, you at least try to get them some of it back.
And you do realize Ron Paul wins Congressional elections? He doesn't accomplish that by pissing off his neighbors. He has also made perfectly clear in speeches that he is practical about certain expenditures, processes, and departments he doesnt personally agree with.
You do know the Club for Growth is a joke, too, right? They support policies that have nothing to do with economics. I think currently they are mostly lobbying for pro-War Republican challengers. in the past it was abortion/pro-life,etc. Their support for economic growth/free market candidates doesnt seem to exist. They also don't like Ron Paul. They arent for markets, they are for military industrial crony corporatism.
If you watch the Taft Club speech, he answered this question and its been addressed numerous times.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:11 PM
Ron Paul voted No. That is, Ron Paul voted to keep the funding of The Perfect Christmas Tree in the bill.
yes it seemed like he did it to support someone that was voting against pork. because they were personally attacking this congressman that was against the pork.
It seems when attacked by known forces Dr Paul will attack back, we just found proof!
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:13 PM
yes it seemed like he did it to support someone that was voting against pork. because they were personally attacking this congressman that was against the pork.
It seems when attacked by known forces Dr Paul will attack back, we just found proof!
How can you defend this vote to fund The Perfect Christmas Tree?
Man from La Mancha
10-13-2007, 09:13 PM
Sheesh, get over this earmark stuff compared to the treasonous acts of most of congress with all their bought off votes, you guys have to make this earmark such a big deal. It reminds me of the people that give their doctor gods $10,000 of dollars yet some small author puts out a book for$19.95 all the same jerks complain that guy is trying to profit off his book and should give it away for free. GET a life.
.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:14 PM
As he says in his speeches, voting against the earmarks does NOT cut spending at all. Since he has no chance to cut the spending either way, it makes sense that he puts in requests from his constituents.
As he said, he may not personally support something, but as a representative of his people, he should listen to his constituents when they bring a request to him.
The alternative is " Hey, constituents, F YOU guys. I am going to send your money to ( insert state here) to study the mating habbits of transexual mosquitos. And you can't get anything back."
The whole voting against earmark thing is symbolic. You still spend the same money. You just ensure your constituents send all their dollars elsewhere. It's the idea that if you are forcing people to spend the money, you at least try to get them some of it back.
And you do realize Ron Paul wins Congressional elections? He doesn't accomplish that by pissing off his neighbors. He has also made perfectly clear in speeches that he is practical about certain expenditures, processes, and departments he doesnt personally agree with.
You do know the Club for Growth is a joke, too, right? They support policies that have nothing to do with economics. I think currently they are mostly lobbying for pro-War Republican challengers. in the past it was abortion/pro-life,etc. Their support for economic growth/free market candidates doesnt seem to exist. They also don't like Ron Paul. They arent for markets, they are for military industrial crony corporatism.
If you watch the Taft Club speech, he answered this question and its been addressed numerous times.
So do you support federal funding of the Perfect Christmas Tree?
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:14 PM
How can you defend this vote to fund The Perfect Christmas Tree?
kylejack, read the others, I was really kidding, but it is just politics, he was supporting a friend that helps him in cutting the pork from bills.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:15 PM
kylejack, read the others, I was really kidding, but it is just politics, he was supporting a friend that helps him in cutting the pork from bills.
Could you cite your source on that?
Johncjackson
10-13-2007, 09:15 PM
So do you support federal funding of the Perfect Christmas Tree?
No, but opposing the earmark makes no difference. At all, in reality.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:16 PM
No, but opposing the earmark makes no difference. At all, in reality.
It did make a difference. They voted it out of the bill and The Perfect Christmas Tree didn't receive federal funding.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:17 PM
It did make a difference. They voted it out of the bill and The Perfect Christmas Tree didn't receive federal funding.
DID you read the article you linked too???
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:18 PM
DID you read the article you linked too???
You said that Ron Paul voted No because Ron Paul is his friend and he helps Ron get rid of pork. I'm asking for a citation on that.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:23 PM
read the article, I am speculating a bit, they were attacking McHenry personally for being anti-pork so he in spite wrote an earmark that was full of jokes even in naming, and they voted it down, Dr Paul joined with him to vote FOR the earmark just to support a friend that votes against others.
That is what I read into it, am I saying it is right? not exactly, but he was standing up to make a point, the "perfect christmas tree" name was even full of double meanings.
It didn’t help that McHenry’s project was called the “Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree.”
A Christmas tree is a symbol of hope and good cheer.
But, in Washington, spending bills loaded up with earmarks are likened to Christmas trees covered with ornaments.
When he introduced an amendment to strip McHenry’s project from the spending bill, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said: “It is often said that this bill has become a Christmas tree. Unfortunately, this bill has a Christmas tree. I would think it is simply not a good use of taxpayer dollars.”
also from the article:
“It was a combination of the project sounding like a boondoggle and a real resentment for Patrick McHenry personally,” said Rep. Brad Miller, D-13th, one of four House members from North Carolina who voted to kill the money. “No one has been more vocal and more cheap and dishonest in their criticism of earmarks, and then the earmark he submitted sounded flimsy.”
kylejack
10-13-2007, 09:26 PM
Whatever. I hate that Ron Paul votes to keep pork in bills, and I hate that you guys support a Yes OR a No vote on these bills (as if both can be right), because Ron does both.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 09:37 PM
kyle,
we'd all prefer they not be there at all.
As he says in his speeches, voting against the earmarks does NOT cut spending at all. Since he has no chance to cut the spending either way, it makes sense that he puts in requests from his constituents.
As he said, he may not personally support something, but as a representative of his people, he should listen to his constituents when they bring a request to him.
The alternative is " Hey, constituents, F YOU guys. I am going to send your money to ( insert state here) to study the mating habbits of transexual mosquitos. And you can't get anything back."
The whole voting against earmark thing is symbolic. You still spend the same money. You just ensure your constituents send all their dollars elsewhere. It's the idea that if you are forcing people to spend the money, you at least try to get them some of it back.
And you do realize Ron Paul wins Congressional elections? He doesn't accomplish that by pissing off his neighbors. He has also made perfectly clear in speeches that he is practical about certain expenditures, processes, and departments he doesnt personally agree with.
You do know the Club for Growth is a joke, too, right? They support policies that have nothing to do with economics. I think currently they are mostly lobbying for pro-War Republican challengers. in the past it was abortion/pro-life,etc. Their support for economic growth/free market candidates doesnt seem to exist. They also don't like Ron Paul. They arent for markets, they are for military industrial crony corporatism.
If you watch the Taft Club speech, he answered this question and its been addressed numerous times.
I think I like your answer best :-)
I didn't mean to make a big deal out of this.. it's not like I'm trying to find something 'bad' on our man, because I know there isn't anything bad!
It's just me not understanding it. I will watch the Taft Club speech. Thank you.
ValidusCustodiae
10-13-2007, 10:02 PM
The way I have understood it (and I beg your pardon if this is a misled understanding) earmarks are supposed to be a way to make spending transparent. In other words, they are there as safeguards to make sure all money spent can be accounted for. This money has been being spent for decades, but there was no way for the public to know exactly where their money was going. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I know I do want to know where tax dollars are going. That brings up another point. The people of Ron Paul's congressional district are plagued by the same income tax the rest of us are. Can you blame him for trying to get some of their money back where it came from? I realize it may seem hypocritical to some of you. Just remember that he has never accepted Medicaid or Medicare, he has never taken a government paid junket, he returns a portion of his office's budget to the treasury every year, and he has even refused his own pension in very uncertain times. This man knows more than most people just how much jeopardy the dollar is in. I agree with the above post that if this is the most severe deviation anyone can find in Ron Paul that it is even more of a testament to just how spot on his principles are.
stevedasbach
10-13-2007, 10:08 PM
A member of Congress proposes an amendment that will take Unconstitutional spending out of a bill. Ron Paul votes against it.
I can't endorse that. He still has my support because he's our best shot but I can't see how its consistent with his general philosophy on the role of government.
Earmarks don't increase the total amount of spending. If an earmark is removed from a transportation bill, the total spending stays the same. Transportation bureaucrats (state or national) decide where to spend the money instead of it being determined by the earmark.
trispear
10-13-2007, 11:01 PM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking#Earmarks_in_U.S._politics:
Definitions
In U.S. politics, an earmark refers to congressional provisions that directs funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees). Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.
There is no official definition of an earmark, though various public interest groups and government agencies have developed their own. Attempts have also been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress has, within the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the ability to direct the appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This includes the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
*Note, Ron Pau is one of the few that discloses his earmarks. Representatives don't have to and many/most of the Republican Candidates don't.
The way I have understood it (and I beg your pardon if this is a misled understanding) earmarks are supposed to be a way to make spending transparent. In other words, they are there as safeguards to make sure all money spent can be accounted for. This money has been being spent for decades, but there was no way for the public to know exactly where their money was going. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I know I do want to know where tax dollars are going. That brings up another point. The people of Ron Paul's congressional district are plagued by the same income tax the rest of us are. Can you blame him for trying to get some of their money back where it came from? I realize it may seem hypocritical to some of you. Just remember that he has never accepted Medicaid or Medicare, he has never taken a government paid junket, he returns a portion of his office's budget to the treasury every year, and he has even refused his own pension in very uncertain times. This man knows more than most people just how much jeopardy the dollar is in. I agree with the above post that if this is the most severe deviation anyone can find in Ron Paul that it is even more of a testament to just how spot on his principles are.
This answer makes the most sense to me personally. Since we're all speculating here, I'll speculate that this explanation is closest to the truth. Ron Paul is a SMART man, I don't think he votes carelessly.
In Congress people often vote for amendments to kill bills they do like. They will vote for something outrageous hoping that it will hurt the bill on its final passage. I think the most important thing is Ron Paul doesn't like these spending bills and will vote no on most of the final spending bills.
The way I have understood it (and I beg your pardon if this is a misled understanding) earmarks are supposed to be a way to make spending transparent. In other words, they are there as safeguards to make sure all money spent can be accounted for. This money has been being spent for decades, but there was no way for the public to know exactly where their money was going. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I know I do want to know where tax dollars are going. That brings up another point. The people of Ron Paul's congressional district are plagued by the same income tax the rest of us are. Can you blame him for trying to get some of their money back where it came from? I realize it may seem hypocritical to some of you. Just remember that he has never accepted Medicaid or Medicare, he has never taken a government paid junket, he returns a portion of his office's budget to the treasury every year, and he has even refused his own pension in very uncertain times. This man knows more than most people just how much jeopardy the dollar is in. I agree with the above post that if this is the most severe deviation anyone can find in Ron Paul that it is even more of a testament to just how spot on his principles are.
Just on the earmark issue (and not on the striking earmarks issue which I don't know enough about) it's perfectly fine with me that he requests them. If he didn't he likely doesn't hold his seat. People pay attention to this stuff and if he doesn't respect these peoples requests he doesn't get re-elected and he can't stand up for liberty in the congress. Yes it's wrong but that's how the system currently works. He has the good sense to vote no on the ultimate bill and that's good enough for me.
PINN4CL3
10-14-2007, 01:24 AM
The way I have understood it (and I beg your pardon if this is a misled understanding) earmarks are supposed to be a way to make spending transparent. In other words, they are there as safeguards to make sure all money spent can be accounted for. This money has been being spent for decades, but there was no way for the public to know exactly where their money was going. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I know I do want to know where tax dollars are going. That brings up another point. The people of Ron Paul's congressional district are plagued by the same income tax the rest of us are. Can you blame him for trying to get some of their money back where it came from? I realize it may seem hypocritical to some of you. Just remember that he has never accepted Medicaid or Medicare, he has never taken a government paid junket, he returns a portion of his office's budget to the treasury every year, and he has even refused his own pension in very uncertain times. This man knows more than most people just how much jeopardy the dollar is in. I agree with the above post that if this is the most severe deviation anyone can find in Ron Paul that it is even more of a testament to just how spot on his principles are.
While I'll certainly admit my ignorance as to the inner circles of our federal government, I have to say I'm with Kylejack on this one. The above explanation just doesn't do it for me.
If money is to be accounted for, then let it be accounted for, but let it also be spent properly, or not spent at all. Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it right, and so I'm a little confused as to why Ron would vote against these amendments.
Giving some to get some might be the way of conventional politics, but lets not pretend that Ron's campaign isn't all about flying directly in the face of this line of thinking.
LastoftheMohicans
10-14-2007, 01:38 AM
Ron Paul's position is that if he doesn't request earmarks, even though he will vote against the final bill, is that it would transfer power to bureaucrats to determine how money is spent. As others have said, he has to represent his constituents and try to get some of their money back.
And Yes, the Club for Growth is a complete joke organization. They pose as "pro-growth" conservatives who try to get rid of "anti-growth" Republicans. In actuality, they are just another species of big-government conservatives. They just are for a little less government that the big-government conservatives they oppose. Their former director, Stephen Moore, is now at the War Street Journal. The guy is a complete Bush apologist. He used to be at the supposedly libertarian Cato Institute. He claims to be a free-market guy but stated after the CNBC debate that he disagrees a lot with Ron Paul. How can a guy who claims to be a free-market budget hawk disagree "a lot" with a Congressman who votes for the least amount of taxes and spending. The Club also portrays anyone who opposes NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO as anti-free trade. Those treaties or agreements have nothing to do with free trade.
aksmith
10-14-2007, 02:03 AM
If money is to be accounted for, then let it be accounted for, but let it also be spent properly, or not spent at all. Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it right, and so I'm a little confused as to why Ron would vote against these amendments.
Here is what you're missing. If the choice were "let it be spent properly or not spent at all" then Ron would always vote for not spending it. That is NEVER the choice. The choice is, let's spend it on earmarks or hand it over to the executive branch and let them do with it as they see fit (i.e. hand it to their cronies and sycophants to consolidate their power even more.) He does not like this process and does not like participating in it, but the money will be spent, and spent in a way that would likely never help anyone in his district, so he inserts the earmarks and votes against stripping the earmarks of others and handing the money to Clinton or Bush or any other president.
I hope that makes the reasoning clearer.
Ron Paul Fan
10-14-2007, 02:04 AM
While I'll certainly admit my ignorance as to the inner circles of our federal government, I have to say I'm with Kylejack on this one. The above explanation just doesn't do it for me.
If money is to be accounted for, then let it be accounted for, but let it also be spent properly, or not spent at all. Just because something has been done for decades doesn't make it right, and so I'm a little confused as to why Ron would vote against these amendments.
Giving some to get some might be the way of conventional politics, but lets not pretend that Ron's campaign isn't all about flying directly in the face of this line of thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims
Whenever earmarks come up I just link to this interview where Congressman Paul explains it himself to Kudlow. What do you want him to do? If he didn't represent his district who pays taxes, he wouldn't be a 20 term Congressman. The system is flawed! As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined to live beneath our means.
MicroBalrog
10-14-2007, 04:01 AM
It's interesting nobody here noted just how much the CfG is biased against Ron, they don't even have him on their list of Republican candidates.
PINN4CL3
10-14-2007, 01:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vPUqPTims
Whenever earmarks come up I just link to this interview where Congressman Paul explains it himself to Kudlow. What do you want him to do? If he didn't represent his district who pays taxes, he wouldn't be a 20 term Congressman. The system is flawed! As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined to live beneath our means.
Yes, thank you for that link. I hadn't seen that interview, and he directly addresses the issue of earmarks here.
However, I'm still a little hazy on the explanation. What is this "system" that he feels needs to be changed? Where does this money come from, and if it's not spent by Congress why would bureaucrats get it? Are we talking like committee budgets or something?
Sorry for the questions. ;) I understand this is not a U.S. government course, but if anyone is willing to explain, it just makes it that much easier to explain to others why Ron Paul is the man this year.
runderwo
10-14-2007, 03:34 PM
The system he's talking about is the system that thinks it's appropriate to appropriate $60 billion on a whim and let the politicians divide up the loot. The system that thinks tax-and-spend is the path to maximizing freedom and prosperity.
cjhowe
10-14-2007, 08:48 PM
H.R. 2829 - RP Votes: Nay
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-606
H.R. 2641 - RP Votes: Nay
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-641
H.R. 3043 - RP Votes: Nay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll686.xml
H.R. 3074 - RP Votes: Nay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll715.xml
H.R. 3093 - RP Votes: Nay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll744.xml
H.R. 3161 RP Votes: Nay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll816.xml
H.R. 3222 RP Votes: Not Voting - DoD appropriations - August 5th Iowa Debate
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll846.xml
Most of the amendment votes were to BAR spending...not to initiate the spending.
I think I understand it now. As is usually the case with Ron Paul, there is a simple explanation to something that seems at first quuite puzzling. The Kudlow interview helped a lot. The reason I brought this up was that I was confronted with this on another forum where I was making great progress promoting Ron Paul. Then somebody brings this up... They're really digging deep now..
Thanks for helping me understand.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.