House of Reprentatives RePork Card

[adios]

Thought this might be interesting to some:

Summary of Pork Spending in the House of Representatives:

Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.

The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.

105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.

The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%

[TomCollins]

I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[adios]

Yeah seems poor. At least he rejected more of these earmarks than any other Democrat except one.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's likely to be more complicated than the bill being just anti-pork. Given the way this usually works there were probably some asinine riders thrown in (a la internet gambling prohibition).

Too often congrssmen are criticized (or praised) for their vote on a bill solely based on the title, e.g., "How could you be against the PATRIOT act?! What are you, some kind of pinko commie?!"

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's likely to be more complicated than the bill being just anti-pork. Given the way this usually works there were probably some asinine riders thrown in (a la internet gambling prohibition).

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny though how the Republicans and Democrats differ so greatly in their voting patterns. The Democrats are in the majority now. What "asinine riders" would Paul support that would cause him to also vote for earmarks included in the same bill as the "asinine rider" you refer to?

Let's say it was something like internet gambling prohibition where that's arguably a limitation by the "nanny state" that Paul is opposed to that also included earmarks. Clearly Paul would vote against such a bill and thus he'd be shooting down the earmark. For your scenario to be valid it would have to include measures to remove power from the "nanny state" and include earmarks. I have my doubts that this is what's going on. Perhaps you can think of a better example than internet gambling to illustrate your point because I'm not getting it.

I guess it could be something like let's withdraw funding from Iraq and have a few earmarks attached to it. Doubt if that would constitute all of the votes for earmarks though. Anyway this article seems to imply that the earmark specifically was shot down.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's likely to be more complicated than the bill being just anti-pork.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the case. Dr. Paul is at loggerheads with the Jeff Flake camp over the importance of going after "earmarks" for pork spending. Flake uses it as a very flashy banner and rallying cry to garner support amongst small-government types, groups like Americans For Prosperity. Paul sees this as a largely cosmetic effort, all sound and fury signifying nothing, and in fact is often a step in the wrong direction, since removing an earmark does not remove a penny of spending from the budget; rather it takes the money from being personally spent by a member of congress, and gives it to the bureaucracy to spend. Paul wants one of two things: either *actually* remove the spending from the budget, *or* make the earmarking process completely transparent. This is what he himself does. He is one of only a handful of Congressmen who publicly release their earmarks ahead of time, and of course the media and misguided groups like AFP and CFG take the opportunity to slam him for it. Whether or not you agree philosophically with Paul or someone like Flake on earmarks, there is no way to deny that Paul's is a well thought out position and strategy.

Paul finds Flake particularly frustrating, since he makes so much noise going after a few tens of millions in pork spending (that won't come off the budget anyway), yet supports the war, and keeps voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on *that* particular pork program.

Also, the Club For Growth report was a subtle hit piece, chiding Paul for being "too idealistic" and not practical enough, "Ron Paul: The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good." Of course, then you find the other people who slam him for being too practical and not idealistic enough, like submitting earmarks for the appropriations bills that he then votes against. The truth is in the middle. Paul is a practical idealist, and in fact is willing to compromise, as long as what he's compromising on is not his principles. He has said repeatedly that he would even be willing to support programs like SCHIP, if only congress would pay for it by cutting elsewhere. But congress never ever does.

[adios]

Just skimmed over this but it seems favorable to Paul to me FWIW:

Analysis of Ron Paul Voting Record

[Case Closed]

adios,

Cool link, give me more fodder when I have to explain why I am not a democrat to my family over thanksgiving break.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's likely to be more complicated than the bill being just anti-pork. Given the way this usually works there were probably some asinine riders thrown in (a la internet gambling prohibition).

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny though how the Republicans and Democrats differ so greatly in their voting patterns. The Democrats are in the majority now. What "asinine riders" would Paul support that would cause him to also vote for earmarks included in the same bill as the "asinine rider" you refer to?

Let's say it was something like internet gambling prohibition where that's arguably a limitation by the "nanny state" that Paul is opposed to that also included earmarks. Clearly Paul would vote against such a bill and thus he'd be shooting down the earmark. For your scenario to be valid it would have to include measures to remove power from the "nanny state" and include earmarks. I have my doubts that this is what's going on. Perhaps you can think of a better example than internet gambling to illustrate your point because I'm not getting it.

I guess it could be something like let's withdraw funding from Iraq and have a few earmarks attached to it. Doubt if that would constitute all of the votes for earmarks though. Anyway this article seems to imply that the earmark specifically was shot down.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are criticizing Paul for voting *against* some anti-pork bills. I was thinking that he might have agreed with the anti-pork aspect but there could have been something else in the bill that would cause him to vote "no" on the bill.

If Boro is right, then it's a bit different, but as usual, a certain amount of complication and deception is involved. That's why I really cringe when ppl just look at the title and go "zomg! I can't believe he did / didn't vote for xyz!"

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised Ron Paul only voted against 29% of them. Anyone know why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's likely to be more complicated than the bill being just anti-pork. Given the way this usually works there were probably some asinine riders thrown in (a la internet gambling prohibition).

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny though how the Republicans and Democrats differ so greatly in their voting patterns. The Democrats are in the majority now. What "asinine riders" would Paul support that would cause him to also vote for earmarks included in the same bill as the "asinine rider" you refer to?

Let's say it was something like internet gambling prohibition where that's arguably a limitation by the "nanny state" that Paul is opposed to that also included earmarks. Clearly Paul would vote against such a bill and thus he'd be shooting down the earmark. For your scenario to be valid it would have to include measures to remove power from the "nanny state" and include earmarks. I have my doubts that this is what's going on. Perhaps you can think of a better example than internet gambling to illustrate your point because I'm not getting it.

I guess it could be something like let's withdraw funding from Iraq and have a few earmarks attached to it. Doubt if that would constitute all of the votes for earmarks though. Anyway this article seems to imply that the earmark specifically was shot down.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are criticizing Paul for voting *against* some anti-pork bills. I was thinking that he might have agreed with the anti-pork aspect but there could have been something else in the bill that would cause him to vote "no" on the bill.

If Boro is right, then it's a bit different, but as usual, a certain amount of complication and deception is involved. That's why I really cringe when ppl just look at the title and go "zomg! I can't believe he did / didn't vote for xyz!"

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that I missed that I think you're pointing out more or less is the magnitude of the pork spending involved. I read over the report on Paul's record that I posted a linky to and the amount of money involved was low by government standards. They mentioned stuff in 2007 that cost like a few houndred thousand dollars. I mean the saying about federal spending in Washingtion is a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money. They're talking about stuff that isn't even 7 figures let alone 10. They also give some reasons why Paul voted the way he did.