Amash-Sole no vote, Paul and Massie votes for Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act

[Spoa]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll609.xml


Another bill that I don't think is of great importance. Just thought this was interesting. No big deal I don't think. But Amash was the only one to vote no, while Paul and Massie voted with the majority for the bill.

INTERESTING!


In addition: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll610.xml

On this bill, Paul and Amash voted against the Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act while Massie voted for it.

Again, both these bills are of very little consequence or importance to the liberty movement (at least in my opinion). I just thought it was interesting that it is 2:1 on 3 bills now.

(Someone mentioned that he thought the "three musketeers" would vote together a lot. Interestingly enough...that hasn't happened a lot.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr5997

H.R. 5997 would authorize the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. Under the bill, the grants could be used for the development and maintenance of an initial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, their families, and immediate victims from a chemical or biological event.

According to the bill’s sponsor, the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) provides funding to state and local governments to assist in preparing for and responding to mass casualty incidents resulting from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other public health emergencies. The grants help local jurisdictions develop response plans, conduct exercises and training, and acquire medical countermeasures and protective equipment for dealing with large scale biological events.

As a stand-alone program, MMRS has not been reauthorized or appropriated funds in recent years. H.R. 5997 would authorize the use of Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) funding for enhancing medical preparedness, in effect, making the activities of the MMRS program an allowable use for jurisdictions under the UASI and SHSGP.

A CBO score of H.R. 5997 was not available as of press time.

(I'm guessing expensive! - moonsuits ain't cheap!)

-t

[BSU kid]

Why do we need all these pointless bills anyways, its so stupid...in the Illinois legislature all Freshman are required (per social norms) to draft a new law. Clearly that culture exists at the federal level as well.

[sailingaway]

Is this (Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act) a different way to spend money already allocated to DHS? Because I could see where this is a better expenditure than TSA for example, or spying on us.

[talkingpointes]

Getting ready for the coming shit storm on the realization that some people are just not who they seem to be. Dr. NO, VOTES NO, AND DOES NOT SPLIT HAIRS. MY money is on Amash becoming the next torch bearer in that of the liberty standard. Rand's getting to second base with the GOP, and if Massie knows what is good for him he will not run for first.

[1836]

One problem I foresee with Thomas is a lack of explaining positions, per Amash. Unless Thomas does this (and of course he is more than capable if he so chose), then we may never know why he votes differently on some of these issues.

[LibertyEagle]

Getting ready for the coming shit storm on the realization that some people are just not who they seem to be. Dr. NO, VOTES NO, AND DOES NOT SPLIT HAIRS. MY money is on Amash becoming the next torch bearer in that of the liberty standard. Rand's getting to second base with the GOP, and if Massie knows what is good for him he will not run for first.

I think you're jumping the gun more than just a little bit.

[Occam's Banana]

(Someone mentioned that he thought the "three musketeers" would vote together a lot. Interestingly enough...that hasn't happened a lot.

That was me. In my defense, I was thinking along the lines of serious NDAA type stuff ...

Still, as (relatively) minor as this stuff may be, I would *really* be interested in knowing the reasons why each voted the way he did (if only to get some kind of perspective on their approaches & thought processes).

[ronpaulfollower999]

Why do we need all these pointless bills anyways, its so stupid...in the Illinois legislature all Freshman are required (per social norms) to draft a new law. Clearly that culture exists at the federal level as well.

My law would be to repeal that law. :D

[Brett85]

Getting ready for the coming shit storm on the realization that some people are just not who they seem to be. Dr. NO, VOTES NO, AND DOES NOT SPLIT HAIRS. MY money is on Amash becoming the next torch bearer in that of the liberty standard. Rand's getting to second base with the GOP, and if Massie knows what is good for him he will not run for first.

So you're basically saying that Massie should vote no just for the sake of voting "no," even if there isn't any legitimate problem with the bill in question.

[PierzStyx]

So you're basically saying that Massie should vote no just for the sake of voting "no," even if there isn't any legitimate problem with the bill in question.

Yes. Because its apending money we don't have, if nothing else.

[specsaregood]

One problem I foresee with Thomas is a lack of explaining positions, per Amash. Unless Thomas does this (and of course he is more than capable if he so chose), then we may never know why he votes differently on some of these issues.

yeah, I think that is something we should "require" all liberty candidates to pledge to do.

[Brett85]

Yes. Because its apending money we don't have, if nothing else.

Well, I guess I would have to study the bill in question more closely to see how I actually would've voted had I been a member of Congress. I'm just saying that I'm not going to criticize someone like Massie if he doesn't vote "no" on every single bill that comes up. I think he's going to be a great representative, but you can't expect him to agree with Ron and Amash 100% of the time. Like someone else stated, these seem like pretty minor bills.

[Victor Grey]

What I've noticed so far, Amash is a procedure stickler.

Ron votes no because that's what he does.

Amash votes no because the bill isn't signed in triplicate, as deemed proper gentlemanly conduct by the convening owl council, circa 1902.

That viewpoint is good when it comes to deciding on the constitutionality of a bill.

He can be a bit quirky though.

[1836]

Let's not fault Amash or Ron Paul for using the "no" vote as often as they do, even if they vote against seemingly innocuous legislation.

Any time you are voting "yes," you're voting to use the coercive power of government (that power ONLY given the state) to force something into being.

That's a very serious authority and Amash/Paul are correct to be so hesitant in applying it. I think Amash views it that way more than Paul does, as Paul seems to apply more of a constitutional litmus test.

I don't expect, and never expected Thomas Massie to be another Ron Paul or even like Justin Amash. I saw the campaign he ran and thought that he did a great job of appealing to the base of the party, as well as to the tea party/libertarian diehards, but figured that he would be sort of a 95% Ron Paul instead of a 100% Ron Paul.

Amash is more of a purist, but Thomas Massie is the kind of candidate who can WIN going forward and let's be honest, AT THIS POINT Justin Amash could not build a coalition of 50% beyond his district.

You see what I'm getting at, folks? It's all about tradeoffs. Thomas may be just as much a libertarian as Justin is, but Justin will vote his conscience without abandon, whereas Thomas may play a bit more politics.

PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll610.xml) and PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll609.xml)

What I just linked are TWO house votes from THIS WEEK where Massie voted yea and Amash voted nay. In one case, Amash was the only "no" vote, with even Paul voting for the bill (Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act).

[Brett85]

Any time you are voting "yes," you're voting to use the coercive power of government (that power ONLY given the state) to force something into being.

Well, that isn't really true if you're voting "yes" on a bill that cuts taxes, cuts spending, reduces regulations, repeals an existing law, etc. There are a lot of times when a politician should vote "yes."

[Spoa]

That was me. In my defense, I was thinking along the lines of serious NDAA type stuff ...

Still, as (relatively) minor as this stuff may be, I would *really* be interested in knowing the reasons why each voted the way he did (if only to get some kind of perspective on their approaches & thought processes).

You actually have a 100% accuracy rate at this point in my book since the only controversial piece of legislation that all in the liberty movement can agree on was this bill: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll607.xml (The Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act).

All the others don't matter a whole lot.

[Spoa]

Let's not fault Amash or Ron Paul for using the "no" vote as often as they do, even if they vote against seemingly innocuous legislation.

Any time you are voting "yes," you're voting to use the coercive power of government (that power ONLY given the state) to force something into being.

That's a very serious authority and Amash/Paul are correct to be so hesitant in applying it. I think Amash views it that way more than Paul does, as Paul seems to apply more of a constitutional litmus test.

I don't expect, and never expected Thomas Massie to be another Ron Paul or even like Justin Amash. I saw the campaign he ran and thought that he did a great job of appealing to the base of the party, as well as to the tea party/libertarian diehards, but figured that he would be sort of a 95% Ron Paul instead of a 100% Ron Paul.

Amash is more of a purist, but Thomas Massie is the kind of candidate who can WIN going forward and let's be honest, AT THIS POINT Justin Amash could not build a coalition of 50% beyond his district.

You see what I'm getting at, folks? It's all about tradeoffs. Thomas may be just as much a libertarian as Justin is, but Justin will vote his conscience without abandon, whereas Thomas may play a bit more politics.

PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll610.xml) and PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll609.xml)

What I just linked are TWO house votes from THIS WEEK where Massie voted yea and Amash voted nay. In one case, Amash was the only "no" vote, with even Paul voting for the bill (Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act).

But on clearly unconstitutional legislations, all three of them vote no so far! http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll607.xml

[sailingaway]

Let's not fault Amash or Ron Paul for using the "no" vote as often as they do, even if they vote against seemingly innocuous legislation.

Any time you are voting "yes," you're voting to use the coercive power of government (that power ONLY given the state) to force something into being.

That's a very serious authority and Amash/Paul are correct to be so hesitant in applying it. I think Amash views it that way more than Paul does, as Paul seems to apply more of a constitutional litmus test.

I don't expect, and never expected Thomas Massie to be another Ron Paul or even like Justin Amash. I saw the campaign he ran and thought that he did a great job of appealing to the base of the party, as well as to the tea party/libertarian diehards, but figured that he would be sort of a 95% Ron Paul instead of a 100% Ron Paul.

Amash is more of a purist, but Thomas Massie is the kind of candidate who can WIN going forward and let's be honest, AT THIS POINT Justin Amash could not build a coalition of 50% beyond his district.

You see what I'm getting at, folks? It's all about tradeoffs. Thomas may be just as much a libertarian as Justin is, but Justin will vote his conscience without abandon, whereas Thomas may play a bit more politics.

PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll610.xml) and PROOF (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll609.xml)

What I just linked are TWO house votes from THIS WEEK where Massie voted yea and Amash voted nay. In one case, Amash was the only "no" vote, with even Paul voting for the bill (Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act).

There is nothing magic about 'no votes'. The vote 'no' has to be correct for voting 'no' to be the right vote. That is why I asked if the one Ron voted yes on just, as it sounds, allocated already apportioned to DHS funds, so Ron was saying 'by all means spend that money on medical preparation rather than on spying on citizens' for example.

I will look it up eventually, but so far whenever I've had a question with a vote of Ron's when I looked into it I understood his position.

[Jackie Moon]

Is this (Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act) a different way to spend money already allocated to DHS? Because I could see where this is a better expenditure than TSA for example, or spying on us.

I'm no expert but that's what I got from reading it also. It looks like it will use money that's already been allocated to the "Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP)" to pay for the "Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)".

So that wouldn't really be voting for new spending. The money is already going to be spent, this just decides what it will be used for.

[John F Kennedy III]

My law would be to repeal that law. :D

You're aiming low. I'd call their bluff.

A statewide lift on all gun bans :)

or

Lower each of their paychecks to $17.76 a year.