The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card

[Jojo]

The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08...owth_repor.php

Is this a bunch of bull?? Can someone explain Ron Paul's score on this?

[QWE]

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]

how many of them voted against the pork?

The pork is already unconstitutional so why make a law that makes it wrong?

[dircha]

The 2007 Club for Growth RePORK Card
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08...owth_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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[0zzy]

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]

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.