« Undead Mistaken For Dead | Main | Johnny Coiffeur: Everything To Everyone »
Ron Paul: Closet Porker?
Viewed through the Club for Growth lens, GOP crazy man Ron Paul can actually be mistaken for a stable individual. One with a generally admirable fiscal policy record.
- Voted for a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes
- Voted for a capital gains tax cut
- Voted for a bill to require Congress to replace the tax code with a simple and fair tax system
- Voted to cut taxes by $80 billion over five years
- Voted to override Clinton's veto and repeal the Death Tax
- Voted to override Clinton's veto and alleviate the marriage penalty
- Voted to repeal the tax on Social Security benefits
- Voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003
- Voted to permanently repeal the Death Tax
- Voted to extend the Bush tax cuts
Paul's also got a long history of voting against expansionary government spending, in keeping with his opinion that we ought to disband everything from the IRS to the military. But the Club's new study of the radically pennywise Congressman's recent record reveals some curiously spendthrift moments.
Ron Paul's history contains some curious indiscretions, including a vote for $232 million for federally mandated election reform (only 1 of 21 Republicans to vote for it) and a vote against the line-item veto -even after it was modified to pass constitutional muster. Paul's record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake's anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth's RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments.
Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's Urban Center; $129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree project;" $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California. This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry."
In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the if you can't beat 'em, join 'em position, arguing that "I don't think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back." This is a contradiction of Paul's self-proclaimed "opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution."
Handcrafted by Flip on October 29, 2007 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00e54f14ab2b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul: Closet Porker?:
» california closet from http://californiaclosetbeginnings.info
california closet gorgeous touch items [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 7, 2008 11:14:43 AM
Comments
On the issue of the line-item veto, consider that Ron Paul is running on a strong platform of opposing expansion of Presidential and executive branch power. For that matter, since money budgeted and not allocated by earmarks is spent by executive branch bureaucrats, the same issue arises again. Finally, Ron Paul has voted against the final spending bills each time. It wouldn't matter how loaded down the bills were with pork if others did the same or the president was brave enough to veto bills. Ron Paul, as president, would veto most spending bills. The issue of pork would be a complete non-issue within months of his taking office.Posted by: N. Pannbacker | Oct 29, 2007 2:48:28 PM
If this is the only dirt they can dig up on Ron Paul they can forget it. His honesty is beyond reproach and he is the ONLY candidate that can sae this country! http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2007/10/29/mike-huckabee-and-ethics.html?s_cid=rss:mike-huckabee-and-ethics.html http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=8878cfb7-7da4-4f60-b56d-57f50271c7d8Posted by: Fed Up | Oct 30, 2007 9:33:13 AM
I would like you to back up that slander of "Crazy Man" with solid facts. Just because the constitution and honesty is so out of place in this corrupt society? This is just another frivolous smear that won't work. Look at this other one exposed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwAiB3tgAY You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel and their ain't nothing there!Posted by: Paul Weber | Oct 30, 2007 10:39:55 AM
I see the tin-foil people are out supporting their kook-leader.Posted by: Pothus | Oct 30, 2007 5:47:03 PM
Voting for pork is not a good habit, nor does Congress have the Constitutional right to do so. I will be watching Paul's votes closely this year. If he votes unconstitutionally, I'll let him know my thoughts on the matter. Shame on you, Paul!Posted by: JP | May 2, 2008 4:26:53 AM

